City of Tulsa, Oklahoma
Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan
November 25, 2002
R.D. Flanagan & Associates Planning Consultants
Meshek & Associates, Inc. French & Associates, Ltd. Engineering Consultants Planning Consultants December 23, 2002
Ms. Connie Dill, State Hazard Mitigation Officer Oklahoma Department of Civil Emergency Management P.O. Box 53365 Oklahoma City, OK 73152
RE: Multi-Hazard Mitigation
Dear Ms. Dill:
We are pleased to submit this City of Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan- 2002, as fulfillment of the requirements of the Hazard Mitigation Grant (FEMA- 1355-DR-OK).
This Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, prepared in accordance with State and Federal guidance, addresses floodplain management, dam and levee failures, tornadoes, high winds, hailstorms, lightning, winter storms, extreme heat, drought, expansive soils, urban and wild fires, earthquakes, and hazardous materials events.
We look forward to implementing this plan to enhance protection of the lives and property of our citizens from natural hazards and hazard materials incidents. If we can answer any questions or be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 918.596.9608, or Mr. Ken Hill at 918.596.9240.
Sincerely,
Charles L. Hardt, P.E., Director City of Tulsa Department of Public Works
City of Tulsa, Oklahoma
Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan
November 25, 2002
R.D. Flanagan & Associates Planning Consultants
Meshek & Associates, Inc. French & Associates, Ltd. Engineering Consultants Planning Consultants Table of Contents
Acknowledgements...... xii
Executive Summary ...... xiv Background...... xiv Purpose ...... xiv Hazard Mitigation Citizens Advisory Committee...... xv The Planning Process ...... xv Plan Summary ...... xvi Mitigation Measures...... xviii Mitigation Action Plan ...... xviii
Chapter 1: Introduction...... 1–1 1.1 About the Plan ...... 1–1 1.1.1 Purpose ...... 1–1 1.1.2 Scope ...... 1–2 1.1.3 Authority...... 1–2 1.1.4 Funding...... 1–2 1.1.5 Goals...... 1–2 National Mitigation Strategy and Goal...... 1–2 State of Oklahoma Mitigation Strategy and Goals...... 1–3 City of Tulsa Core Goal ...... 1–4 1.1.6 Definition of Terms ...... 1–4 1.1.7 Point of Contact...... 1–4 1.2 Community Description...... 1–5 1.2.1 Geography ...... 1–5 1.2.2 Climate ...... 1–5 1.2.3 History...... 1–7 1.2.4 Population and Demographics...... 1–7 1.2.5 Local Utilities—Lifelines...... 1–12 1.2.6 Economy...... 1–12 1.2.7 Industry...... 1–12 1.2.8 Future Development ...... 1–13 Growth Trends...... 1–13
i 1.3 Regulatory Framework...... 1–15 1.3.1 Comprehensive Planning and Zoning ...... 1–15 1.3.2 Floodplain and Stormwater Management ...... 1–15 1.3.3 Building Codes ...... 1–15 1.3.4 Fire Insurance ...... 1–15 1.4 Existing Hazard Mitigation Programs ...... 1–16 1.4.1 Community Rating System (CRS) ...... 1–16 1.4.2 Project Impact / Mayor’s Citizen Corps...... 1–16 1.4.3 Flood and Stormwater Management Plans...... 1–17 1.4.4 Capital Improvements Plan ...... 1–17 1.4.5 Emergency Operations Plan ...... 1–17 1.4.6 Critical Facilities ...... 1–17 1.4.7 City of Tulsa Buildings ...... 1–18 1.5 The Planning Process ...... 1–21 1.5.1 Step One: Organize to Prepare the Plan ...... 1–21 1.5.2 Step Two: Involve the Public ...... 1–25 1.5.3 Step Three: Coordinate with Other Agencies and Organizations ...... 1–25 Federal ...... 1–26 National Non-Profit...... 1–26 State ...... 1–26 Regional...... 1–26 County ...... 1–26 Tulsa ...... 1–27 Other Communities ...... 1–27 1.5.4 Step Four: Assess the Hazard...... 1–27 1.5.5 Step Five: Assess the Problem ...... 1–31 1.5.6 Step Six: Set Goals ...... 1–31 1.5.7 Step Seven: Review Possible Mitigation Measures ...... 1–31 1.5.8 Step Eight: Draft an Action Plan...... 1–31 1.5.9 Step Nine: Adopt the Plan ...... 1–31 1.5.10 Step Ten: Implement, Evaluate, and Revise...... 1–32
Chapter 2: Floods ...... 2–1 2.1 Hazard Profile...... 2–1 2.2 History of Tulsa’s Flooding Problems ...... 2–4 2.2.1 The Structural Era of Flood Control...... 2–4 2.2.2 The Regulatory Era of Floodplain Management ...... 2–4 Year of the Floods, 1974 ...... 2–5 The 1976 Memorial Day Flood ...... 2–5
ii 2.2.3 The Nonstructural Era of Stormwater Management ...... 2–6 The 1984 Memorial Day Flood ...... 2–6 A Unified Program ...... 2–6 The 1986 Arkansas River Flood...... 2–7 Institutionalization and Acceptance ...... 2–7 2.2.4 The Watershed Era of Comprehensive Management...... 2–8 2.3 Regulation ...... 2–10 2.3.1 Ultimate Watershed Urbanization ...... 2–10 2.3.2 Watershed-Wide Regulation ...... 2–10 2.4 Master Drainage Planning...... 2–11 2.4.1 Master Drainage Plans...... 2–11 2.4.2 Mingo Creek Project...... 2–13 2.4.3 Flood and Stormwater Management Plan, 1990-2005 ...... 2–13 2.4.4 Flood and Stormwater Management Plan (Update), 1999-2014...... 2–14 2.4.5 Community Rating System...... 2–14 Acquisition and Relocation ...... 2–16 Repetitive Loss Plan ...... 2–16 Critical Facilities ...... 2–16 2.4.6 City Stormwater Programs ...... 2–20 Maintenance and Operations ...... 2–20 Response...... 2–20 Recovery and Mitigation ...... 2–20 Hazardous Materials Sites ...... 2–21 Emergency Management ...... 2–21 Forecasting and Warning...... 2–21 Public Awareness ...... 2–21 2.5 Vulnerability ...... 2–24 2.6 Conclusion...... 2–27
Chapter 3: Additional Hazards ...... 3–1 Introduction...... 3–1 3.1 Tornadoes...... 3–3 3.1.1 Hazard Profile...... 3–3 Effects...... 3–3 Normal Frequency...... 3–3 Measurements...... 3–4 3.1.2 Historical Events ...... 3–4 3.1.3 Vulnerable Population...... 3–6
iii 3.1.4 Tornado Scenario...... 3–7 Typical Tulsa Tornado Scenario ...... 3–7 3.1.5 Conclusion...... 3–10 3.1.6 Sources ...... 3–10 3.2 High Winds...... 3–11 3.2.1 Hazard Profile...... 3–11 Effects...... 3–11 Measurements...... 3–12 3.2.2 Historical Events ...... 3–13 3.2.3 Vulnerable Population...... 3–13 3.2.4 Conclusion...... 3–13 3.2.5 Sources ...... 3–14 3.3 Lightning ...... 3–15 3.3.1 Hazard Profile...... 3–15 Effects...... 3–15 Frequency ...... 3–16 3.3.2 Historical Events ...... 3–16 3.3.3 Vulnerable Population...... 3–17 3.3.4 Conclusion...... 3–17 3.3.5 Sources ...... 3–18 3.4 Hailstorms ...... 3–19 3.4.1 Hazard Profile...... 3–19 Effects...... 3–19 Normal Frequency...... 3–19 3.4.2 Historical Events ...... 3–20 3.4.3 Vulnerable Population...... 3–20 3.4.4 Conclusion...... 3–21 3.4.5 Sources ...... 3–21 3.5 Winter Storms...... 3–22 3.5.1 Hazard Profile...... 3–22 Effects...... 3–22 Normal Frequency...... 3–23 3.5.2 Historical Events ...... 3–23 3.5.3 Vulnerable Population...... 3–24 3.5.4 Conclusion...... 3–24 3.5.5 Sources ...... 3–24 3.6 Extreme Heat ...... 3–26 3.6.1 Hazard Profile...... 3–26 Effects...... 3–26
iv Normal Frequency...... 3–27 Measurements...... 3–27 3.6.2 Historical Events ...... 3–27 3.6.3 Vulnerable Population...... 3–28 3.6.4 Conclusion...... 3–29 3.6.5 Sources ...... 3–29 3.7 Drought...... 3–30 3.7.1 Hazard Profile...... 3–30 Effects...... 3–30 Normal Frequency...... 3–31 Measurements...... 3–31 3.7.2 Historical Events ...... 3–32 3.7.3 Vulnerable Population ...... 3–33 3.7.4 Conclusion...... 3–34 3.7.5 Sources ...... 3–34 3.8 Expansive Soils...... 3–36 3.8.1 Hazard Profile...... 3–36 Effects...... 3–36 Normal Frequency...... 3–37 Measurements...... 3–37 3.8.2 Historical Events ...... 3–37 3.8.3 Vulnerable Population...... 3–37 3.8.4 Conclusion...... 3–39 3.8.5 Sources ...... 3–39 3.9 Urban Fires...... 3–40 3.9.1 Hazard Profile...... 3–40 Effects...... 3–40 Normal Frequency...... 3–40 3.9.2 Historical Events ...... 3–40 3.9.3 Vulnerable Population...... 3–41 3.9.4 Conclusion...... 3–42 3.9.5 Sources ...... 3–42 3.10 Wildfires...... 3–43 3.10.1 Hazard Profile...... 3–43 Causes...... 3–44 Effects...... 3–44 Normal Frequency...... 3–44 3.10.2 Historical Events ...... 3–44 3.10.3 Vulnerable Population...... 3–45
v 3.10.4 Conclusion...... 3–45 3.10.5 Sources ...... 3–46 3.11 Earthquakes...... 3–47 3.11.1 Hazard Profile...... 3–47 Effects...... 3–48 Normal Frequency...... 3–48 Measurements...... 3–48 3.11.2 Historical Events ...... 3–49 3.11.3 Vulnerable Population...... 3–50 3.11.4 Conclusion...... 3–51 3.11.5 Sources ...... 3–51 3.12 Hazardous Materials Events ...... 3–52 3.12.1 Hazard Profile...... 3–52 Effects...... 3–53 Normal Frequency...... 3–53 3.12.2 Historical Events ...... 3–53 3.12.3 Vulnerable Population...... 3–54 3.12.4 Conclusion...... 3–54 3.12.5 Sources ...... 3–56 3.13 Dam Failures...... 3–57 3.13.1 Hazard Profile...... 3–57 Effects...... 3–57 Measurements...... 3–58 3.13.2 Historical Events ...... 3–58 3.13.3 Vulnerable Population...... 3–59 Yahola Dam...... 3–60 Warrenton Lake Dam ...... 3–60 A.B. Jewell Dam...... 3–60 3.13.4 Dam Break Scenario...... 3–61 3.13.5 Conclusion...... 3–63 3.13.6 Sources ...... 3–63 3.14 Levee Failures...... 3–64 3.14.1 Hazard Profile...... 3–64 3.14.2 Historical Events ...... 3–64 3.14.3 Vulnerable Population...... 3–65 3.14.4 Levee Failure Scenario...... 3–65 3.14.5 Conclusion...... 3–67 3.14.6 Sources ...... 3–67
vi Chapter 4: Mitigation Strategies...... 4–1 The Research, Review, and Prioritization Process...... 4–1 Mitigation Categories ...... 4–1 4.1 Tulsa Hazard Mitigation Goals...... 4–2 4.1.1 General Goals for all Natural Hazards ...... 4–2 4.1.2 Specific Goals for Particular Natural Hazards ...... 4–2 4.2 Public Information and Education ...... 4–5 4.2.1 Map Information...... 4–5 Flood Maps...... 4–5 Other Hazard Data...... 4–6 4.2.2 Library...... 4–6 4.2.3 Websites ...... 4–7 4.2.4 Outreach Projects...... 4–7 4.2.5 Technical Assistance ...... 4–8 4.2.6 Real Estate Disclosure...... 4–9 4.2.7 Educational Programs...... 4–9 4.2.8 Public Information Program Strategy...... 4–10 4.2.9 Conclusions ...... 4–10 4.2.10 Recommendations ...... 4–11 4.3 Preventive Measures ...... 4–13 4.3.1 Planning...... 4–13 4.3.2 Zoning...... 4–14 4.3.3 Open Space Preservation...... 4–14 4.3.4 Building Codes ...... 4–14 4.3.5 Floodplain Development Regulations ...... 4–14 4.3.6 Stormwater Management...... 4–16 Retention / Detention...... 4–17 Watershed Approaches...... 4–17 4.3.7 Conclusions ...... 4–18 4.3.8 Recommendations ...... 4–18 4.4 Structural Projects ...... 4–20 4.4.1 Reservoirs and Detention ...... 4–20 4.4.2 Levees and Floodwalls ...... 4–20 4.4.3 Channel Improvements...... 4–21 4.4.4 Crossings and Roadways...... 4–21 4.4.5 Drainage and Storm Sewer Improvements...... 4–21 4.4.6 Drainage System Maintenance ...... 4–22 4.4.7 Conclusions ...... 4–22 4.4.8 Recommendations ...... 4–23
vii 4.5 Property Protection ...... 4–24 4.5.1 Acquisition and Relocation ...... 4–24 Cost...... 4–24 Where Appropriate ...... 4–25 4.5.2 Building Elevation...... 4–25 4.5.3 Barriers ...... 4–25 4.5.4 Retrofitting ...... 4–25 Where Appropriate ...... 4–25 Common Measures...... 4–27 4.5.5 Insurance...... 4–27 Flood Insurance ...... 4–28 4.5.6 The City’s Role...... 4–28 Financial Assistance ...... 4–28 Acquisition Agent...... 4–29 Other Incentives...... 4–29 4.5.7 Conclusions ...... 4–29 4.5.8 Recommendations ...... 4–30 4.6 Emergency Services...... 4–31 4.6.1 Threat Recognition ...... 4–31 Floods ...... 4–31 Meteorological Hazards...... 4–32 4.6.2 Warning ...... 4–32 4.6.3 Response...... 4–32 4.6.4 Critical Facilities Protection...... 4–33 4.6.5 Post-Disaster Recovery and Mitigation...... 4–34 Recovery Actions ...... 4–34 Mitigation Actions...... 4–34 4.6.6 Conclusions ...... 4–34 4.6.7 Recommendations ...... 4–35 4.7 Natural Resource Protection ...... 4–36 4.7.1 Wetland Protection ...... 4–36 4.7.2 Erosion and Sedimentation Control...... 4–37 4.7.3 River Restoration...... 4–38 4.7.4 Best Management Practices...... 4–38 4.7.5 Dumping Regulations...... 4–39 4.7.6 Conclusions ...... 4–40 4.7.7 Recommendations ...... 4–40
Chapter 5: Action Plan ...... 5–1
viii
Chapter 6: Plan Maintenance and Adoption...... 6–1 6.1 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan ...... 6–1 6.2 Public Involvement...... 6–1 6.3 Incorporating the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan ...... 6–2
Appendix A: Glossary of Hazard Mitigation Terms ...... A–1
Appendix B: Stormwater Capital Improvements Projects ...... B–1
Appendix C: Hazard Mitigation Capital Improvements Projects ...... C–1
Appendix D: City of Tulsa Critical Facilities...... D–1
Appendix E: City of Tulsa Government Buildings...... E–1
Appendix F: Hazard Mitigation Committee Meeting Agendas...... F–1
Appendix G: Repetitive Loss Plan ...... G–1
Appendix H: Floodplain Acquisition Candidates...... H–1
Appendix J: City of Tulsa Overtopped Bridges...... J–1
Appendix K: City of Tulsa Hazardous Materials Sites...... K–1
Appendix L: Public Comments Survey ...... L–1
ix List of Tables
Table 1–1: City of Tulsa Population Data ...... 1–8 Table 1–2: City of Tulsa Housing Units, By Type (Census)...... 1–8 Table 1–3: City of Tulsa Properties and Values, By Improvement Type (Assessor)...... 1–8 Table 1–4: Tulsa Hazard Mitigation Citizens Advisory Committee Meetings and Activities..1–24 Table 1–5: How and Why these Hazards were Selected ...... 1–28 Table 2–1: Master Drainage Plans and Basins ...... 2–12 Table 2–2: City of Tulsa Critical Facilities Located in the Floodplain ...... 2–18 Table 2–3: City of Tulsa Hazardous Materials Facilities Located in the Floodplain ...... 2–22 Table 2–4: Floodplain Property Value...... 2–24 Table 2–5: Floodplain Building Vulnerability...... 2–25 Table 2–6: Critical Facilities in the Floodplain ...... 2–25 Table 3–1: Fujita Scale ...... 3–4 Table 3–2: Tornadoes in Oklahoma and in Tulsa County Since 1950 and Since 1995...... 3–5 Table 3–3: Tornado Fatalities in the United States...... 3–6 Table 3–4: Tornado Scenario...... 3–9 Table 3–5: Beaufort Scale of Wind Strength...... 3–12 Table 3–6: Saffir-Simpson Scale ...... 3–12 Table 3–7: Fatalities and Property Damage Caused by High Winds From 1995 to 2000...... 3–13 Table 3–8: Locations of Injurious Lightning Strikes...... 3–16 Table 3–9: History of Lightning Events, Fatalities, and Damages from 1995 to 2000 ...... 3–17 Table 3–10: Fatalities and Reported Damages Caused by Hail From 1995 to 2000...... 3–20 Table 3–11: History of Severe Winter Storms, Fatalities, and Damages from 1995 to 2000 ...3–24 Table 3–12: Deaths from Extreme Heat ...... 3–28 Table 3–13: Comparison of Mercalli and Richter Scales ...... 3–49 Table 3–14: Dam Break Scenario...... 3–61 Table 3–15: Critical Facilities in Dam Break Area ...... 3–61 Table 3–16: Levee Failure Scenario ...... 3–67 Table 3–17: Critical Facilities in Levee Failure Area...... 3–67 Table 4–1: Recommended Mitigation Activities for Public Information and Education...... 4–11 Table 4–2: Recommended Mitigation Activities for Preventive Measures...... 4–18 Table 4–3: Recommended Mitigation Activities for Structural Projects...... 4–23 Table 4–4: Recommended Mitigation Activities for Property Protection...... 4–30 Table 4–5: Recommended Mitigation Activities for Emergency Services ...... 4–35 Table 5–1: Multi-Hazard Mitigation Measures, By Priority and Hazard ...... 5–7
x List of Figures
Figure 1–1: Major Street and Highway Map ...... 1–6 Figure 1–2: Population 65 Years and Older ...... 1–9 Figure 1–3: Low Income Areas ...... 1–10 Figure 1–4: Mobile Home Park Locations...... 1–11 Figure 1–5: Tulsa Area Warning Siren Locations ...... 1–19 Figure 1–6: Critical Facilities ...... 1–20 Figure 2–1: Drainage Basins...... 2–3 Figure 2–2: Regulatory Floodplain...... 2–15 Figure 2–3: Repetitive Loss Properties...... 2–17 Figure 2–4: Critical Facilities in the Floodplain...... 2–19 Figure 2–5: Hazardous Materials Sites in the Floodplain...... 2–23 Figure 2–6: City of Tulsa Overtopped Bridges...... 2–26 Figure 3–1: Historical Tornado Paths in Tulsa County ...... 3–4 Figure 3–2: Tornado Scenario ...... 3–8 Figure 3–3: Expansive Soils Map...... 3–38 Figure 3–4: Hazardous Materials Sites...... 3–55 Figure 3–5: Dam Break Scenario Map ...... 3–62 Figure 3–6: Levee Failure Scenario Map...... 3–66 Figure 4–1: Public Service Notice for Flooding...... 4–12
xi Acknowledgements
The Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, October, 2002, was prepared by the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, under the direction of the Department of Public Works.
City of Tulsa Elected Officials
Mayor Bill LaFortune Susan Savage (1990-2002) City Council District 1 Joe Williams City Council District 2 Randi Miller City Council District 3 David Patrick Roscoe Turner (1999 -2002) City Council District 4 Tom Baker Gary Watts (1990-1998) (2000-2002) City Council District 5 Sam Roop City Council District 6 Art Justis City Council District 7 Randy Sullivan Clay Bird (2000-2002) City Council District 8 Bill Christiansen Todd Huston (2000-2002) City Council District 9 Susan Neal R. Braden Pringle, Jr. (1998-2002) City Auditor Phillip W. Wood
Tulsa Hazard Mitigation Citizen Advisory Board
Sandy Cox, Co-Chair Dwayne Wilkerson, Co-Chair J. D. Metcalfe Royce Bentley John Westmoreland June Mustari Neal McNeal Nancy Kincaid-Deacon Bob Roberts David Kollman
Tulsa Staff Technical Advisory Committee
Charles L. Hardt, P.E. Director, Dept. of Public Works Michael L. Buchert, P.E. Asst. Director, Public Works Kenneth Hill, P.E. Manager, Planning & Coordination Ann Patton Director, Project Impact Brent Stout, P.E. Senior Engineer, Public Works Deborah Stowers, P.E. Lead Engineer, Stormwater Mike McCool Director, TAEMA Roger Jolliff Deputy Director, TAEMA Laureen Gibson Gilroy Community Affairs, Public Works Gaylon Pinc, P.E. Mgr., Environ. Eng., INCOG Bill Kaiser, Chief Tulsa Fire Department
xii
Expanded Staff Advisory Committee
Paul D. Zachary, P.E., CFM Deputy Dir., Engineering Services Jack Page, P.E., CFM Deputy Dir., Development Services Clayton Edwards, P.E. Deputy Dir., Environ. Operations Larry Bottoms, P.E. Deputy Dir., Public Facilities Maint. Kim MacLeod Manager, Community Affairs Charlie Jackson Tulsa Police Department Roger Sharp Tulsa Fire Department Richard Hall Planning, Tulsa Fire Department Pat Treadway Urban Development Dept. Greg Warren, ASLA Park Department Rick Myscofski Tulsa City-County Health Dept. Amy Maude Thomas Tulsa City-County Health Dept. Ray Jordan, P.E. Tulsa County Engineer
City of Tulsa Staff Support
Sue Broyles, SDAB Nicole Krambeer, Project Impact
Indian Nations Council of Governments
Jerry Lasker, Director Gaylon Pinc, P.E. John McElhenney, P.E.
Consultants
R. D. Flanagan & Associates Ronald D. Flanagan, CFM, Principal Planning Consultants David Wakefield 2745 E. Skelly Drive, Suite 100 Elizabeth Callahan Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105 Nancy Mulcahy (918) 749-2696 John D. Flanagan [email protected] Michael A. Flanagan Michael Newman Jackson Todd
Meshek & Associates, Inc. Janet K. Meshek, P.E., CFM, President Engineering Consultants H. Dale Reynolds, P.E. P.O. Box 636 Meredith Reeder Sand Springs, Oklahoma 74063 Chris Hill (918) 241-2803 [email protected]
French & Associates, Ltd. French Wetmore, CFM Planning Consultants Mary Lu Wetmore 153 Nanti Street Park Forest, Illinois, 60466 (708) 747-5273 [email protected]
xiii Executive Summary
In the early 1980s Tulsa was identified in a national study as one of the nation’s most disaster-prone areas, having been declared a federal disaster area nine times in only fifteen years. Oklahoma’s location at the intersection of the hot arid zone to the west, the temperate zone to the northeast, and the hot humid zone to the southeast makes it subject to a wide variety of potentially violent weather and natural hazards.
This Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan is an update of the Flood and Stormwater Management Plan, 1999– 2014 and the City of Tulsa Community Ratings System (CRS) Plan. This plan was developed in fulfillment of a Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Oklahoma Department of Civil Emergency Management (ODCEM). Citizen Advisory Committee meeting at Tulsa City Hall Background Virtually every area of the city is vulnerable to natural and man-made hazards. The Tulsa Hazard Mitigation Citizen Advisory Committee (THMCAC) has identified 15 hazards affecting the City of Tulsa, including floods, tornadoes, high winds, lightning, hailstorms, severe winter storms, extreme heat, drought, expansive soils, urban fires, wildfires, earthquakes, hazardous materials events, dam failures, and levee failures.
Purpose The purpose of this plan is to:
· Assess the ongoing mitigation activities in the community · Identify and assess the hazards that pose a threat to citizens and property · Evaluate additional mitigation measures that should be undertaken · Outline a strategy for implementation of mitigation projects
The objective of this plan is to provide guidance for community activities for the next five years. It will ensure that the city and other partners implement activities that are most effective and appropriate for mitigating natural hazards and hazardous materials incidents.
xiv Hazard Mitigation Citizens Advisory Committee Citizens and professionals active in disasters provided important input in the development of the plan and recommended goals and objectives, mitigation measures, and priorities for actions. The THMCAC is comprised of ten members: Dwayne Wilkerson, June Mustari, Royce Bentley, Nancy Kincaid-Deacon, David Kollman, Sandy Cox, J.D. Metcalfe, John Westmoreland, Neal McNeill, and Bob Roberts.
Each year Oklahoma has more tornado events per square mile than any other state
The Planning Process The development of Tulsa’s Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan followed a ten-step process, based on guidance and requirements of FEMA:
1. Organize to prepare the plan 2. Involve the public 3. Coordinate with other agencies and organizations 4. Assess the hazard 5. Assess the problem 6. Set goals 7. Review possible activities 8. Draft the action plan 9. Adopt the plan 10. Implement, evaluate, and revise
xv Plan Summary The City of Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan provides guidance to help Tulsans protect life and property from natural hazards. The plan identifies the hazards that are most likely to strike Tulsa, provides a profile and risk assessment of each hazard, identifies mitigation measures for each hazard, and presents an action plan for the implementation of the mitigation measures.
Chapter 1 provides a profile of the City of Tulsa that includes a community description and regulatory framework, a discussion of existing hazard mitigation programs, and detailed information on the planning process.
Chapter 2 presents a flood profile, the history of Tulsa’s flooding, an assessment of Tulsa’s flooding problems, reviews the actions taken to solve them, and identifies the vulnerable populations, buildings, and infrastructure, including critical facilities.
Chapter 3 provides an assessment of 14 additional natural hazards and hazardous materials events. Each assessment includes a hazard profile, describes the historical events, identifies vulnerable populations and properties at risk, and summarizes the findings for each hazard with a conclusion. A bibliography and list of sources is included at the end of each hazard section.
Chapter 4 presents the goals adopted by the Tulsa Hazard Mitigation Citizen Advisory Committee and organizes proposed mitigation strategies under six mitigation categories: public information and education, preventive activities, structural projects, property protection, emergency services, and natural resource protection. Tulsa Hazard Mitigation Workshop The prioritized mitigation measures for each hazard are summarized in a table at the end of each category section.
Chapter 5 details the action plan for implementation of top ten high priority mitigation projects, including a description of the project, identification of the lead agency, estimated project cost, funding sources, timelines for implementation, and a description of the work product or expected project outcome. A complete prioritized list of the THMCAC’s recommended mitigation measures is presented at the end of the Action Plan.
Chapter 6 provides a discussion of the plan maintenance process, and documentation of the adoption. Plan maintenance includes monitoring, evaluating, and updating the plan, with involvement of the public. The resolutions forming the Tulsa Hazard Mitigation Citizen Advisory Committee, the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission’s adoption resolution, and the resolution of the Tulsa City Council are included.
xvi Appendix A: Glossary of Hazard Mitigation Terms provides a glossary of terms commonly used in disaster management and hazard mitigation.
Appendix B: Stormwater Capital Improvements Projects lists City of Tulsa’s prioritized Flood and Stormwater Management Capital Improvements Projects (CIP), as identified in the several Master Drainage Plans, and city-wide Flood and Stormwater Management Plan 1999-2014.
Appendix C: Hazard Mitigation Capital Improvements Projects lists City of Tulsa’s approved Capital Improvements Projects that accomplish hazard mitigation objectives, and implement the goals and objectives, and mitigation measures recommended by the THMCAC.
Appendix D: Critical Facilities provides a comprehensive list of Critical Facilities within the City of Tulsa, including addresses and telephone numbers.
Appendix E: City of Tulsa Buildings lists City of Tulsa government buildings, including addresses, telephone numbers, and contacts.
Appendix F: Hazard Mitigation Committee Meeting Agendas provides the agendas from THMCAC meetings and supporting staff meetings held during the planning process.
Appendix G: Repetitive Loss Plan presents City of Tulsa’s plan for the NFIP identified Repetitive Loss Properties.
Appendix H: Acquisition Candidates provides a list of floodplain buildings identified by the basin-wide master drainage plans for acquisition as the most cost-effective solution to their flooding problems.
Appendix I is purposely omitted for page numbering and referencing reasons.
Appendix J: Overtopped Bridges provides a list of public infrastructure bridges and culverts that are overtopped by the 100-year regulatory flood, and are recommended by the city-wide Flood and Stormwater Management Plan 1999-2014 for replacement.
Appendix K: Hazardous Materials Sites is a table of Tier 2 Hazardous Materials Sites within the City of Tulsa, including facility name and address. For purposes of this report, toxics, chemicals, and hazardous materials at each site have been suppressed.
Appendix L: Public Comments Survey is a opinion survey conducted by the Department of Public Works, soliciting comments from the public.
xvii Mitigation Measures The following are the high priority mitigation measures defined by the Tulsa Hazard Mitigation Citizens Advisory Committee:
General Winter Storms · Examine optimum methods of · Continue the city’s aggressive implementing public information snow and ice removal plan. and education objectives. · Evaluate and upgrade warning Drought systems. · Build a third flow line to the Lake · Provide new facilities for the 911 Hudson reservoir for additional Center and the Emergency water supply by 2020. Operations Center. · Update GIS data to include public Expansive Soils utility infrastructure. · Investigate codes and incentives for the construction of new Floods foundations to avoid expansive soil problems. · Implement structural and non-
structural flood mitigation measures for flood-prone Hazardous Materials Events properties. · Continue the city’s Household Pollutant Collection program and · Acquire and remove Repetitive build a year-round site for Loss Properties and repeated collection. flooded properties where
appropriate. Dam Failures · Extreme Heat Develop a computer mapping program for results of the Arkansas · Obtain funding for distribution of River’s Keystone Dam release public information and education rates of 250, 350, and 450 materials to vulnerable populations. thousand cubic feet per second.
Mitigation Action Plan The mitigation action plan includes strategies for implementing the mitigation measures, including information on the responsible agency, time frame, cost estimate, funding sources, and a statement of the measurable results.
For further information, contact: Kenneth Hill, P.E. Brent Stout, P.E. Planning and Coordination 2317 South Jackson, Room 312–S Tulsa, OK 74107 (918) 596-9240
xviii
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 About the Plan This document is the first phase of a multi-hazard mitigation plan for the City of Tulsa. It is a strategic planning guide to be presented in fulfillment of requirements of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), according to the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. This act provides federal assistance to state and local governments to alleviate suffering and damage from disasters. It broadens existing relief programs to encourage disaster preparedness plans and programs, coordination and responsiveness, insurance coverage, and hazard mitigation measures.
This plan fulfills requirements for the following programs:
1. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) 2. National Flood Insurance Program’s Community Rating System (CRS) 3. Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA)
Since there is an immediate need to coordinate the various flooding programs with those for other hazards, the first phase is limited to natural hazards and hazardous materials events. In the future, the City will initiate additional studies to address technological and man-made hazards, such as water quality emergencies, power failures, civil unrest, riot, and terrorism.
Start date for the Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan was October 31, 2001. The Oklahoma Department of Civil Emergency Management (ODCEM) approved the application for the plan on January 1, 2002.
1.1.1 Purpose The purpose of this plan is to:
• Assess the ongoing hazard mitigation activities in the Tulsa community (Chapter 1) • Identify and assess the hazards that pose a threat to citizens and property (Chapters 2 and 3) • Evaluate additional mitigation measures that should be undertaken (Chapter 4) • Outline a strategy for implementation of mitigation measures (Chapter 5)
1–1 The objective of this plan is to provide guidance for community activities for the next five years. It will ensure that the City and other partners implement activities that are most effective and appropriate for mitigating natural hazards and hazardous materials incidents.
1.1.2 Scope The scope of the City of Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan is citywide. It addresses all natural hazards deemed to be a threat to citizens of Tulsa, along with hazardous materials events. Both short-term and long-term hazard mitigation opportunities are addressed, and go beyond existing federal, state and local funding programs.
1.1.3 Authority Section 409 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Public Law 93-288, as amended), Title 44 CFR, as amended by Section 102 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, provides the framework for State and Local governments to evaluate and mitigate all hazards as a condition of receiving Federal disaster assistance. A major requirement of the law is the development of a local hazard mitigation plan.
1.1.4 Funding Funding for the City of Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (first phase) was provided by a 75 percent HMGP grant from FEMA, through the Oklahoma Department of Civil Emergency Management (ODCEM). The local share, 25 percent, was provided by the City of Tulsa.
Federal share 75 % $70,500 Local share 25% 23,500 Total cost $94,000
1.1.5 Goals National Mitigation Strategy and Goal FEMA has developed ten fundamental principles for the nation’s mitigation strategy:
1. Risk reduction measures must ensure long-term economic success for the community as a whole, rather than short-term benefits for special interests. 2. Risk reduction measures for one natural hazard must be compatible with risk reduction measures for other natural hazards. 3. Risk reduction measures must be evaluated to achieve the best mix for a given location. 4. Risk reduction measures for natural hazards must be compatible with risk reduction measures for technological hazards and vice versa. 5. All mitigation is local.
1–2 6. Emphasizing proactive mitigation before emergency response can reduce disaster costs and the impacts of natural hazards. Both pre-disaster (preventive) and post- disaster (corrective) mitigation is needed. 7. Hazard identification and risk assessment are the cornerstones of mitigation. 8. Building new federal-state-local partnerships and public-private partnerships is the most effective means of implementing measures to reduce the impacts of natural hazards. 9. Those who knowingly choose to assume greater risk must accept responsibility for that choice. 10. Risk reduction measures for natural hazards must be compatible with the protection of natural and cultural resources.
FEMA’s goal is to:
1. Substantially increase public awareness of natural hazard risk so that the public demands safer communities in which to live and work 2. Significantly reduce the risk of loss of life, injuries, economic costs, and destruction of natural and cultural resources that result from natural hazards
State of Oklahoma Mitigation Strategy and Goals The State of Oklahoma has developed a Strategic All-Hazards Mitigation Plan to guide all levels of government, business, and the public to reduce or eliminate the effects of natural, technological and man-made disasters. The goals and objectives are: • Improve government recovery capability. • Provide pre- and post-disaster recovery guidance. • Protect public health and safety. • Reduce losses and damage to property and infrastructure. • Preserve natural and cultural resources in vulnerable areas. • Preserve the environment. • Focus only on those mitigation measures that are cost effective and provide the best benefit to communities.
The key measures to implement these goals include:
• Enhance communication between state and federal agencies and local governments to facilitate post-disaster recovery, and both pre- and post-disaster mitigation. • Coordinate Federal, State, Local, and private resources to enhance the preparedness and mitigation process. • Ensure consistency between Federal and State regulations. • Provide protection from hazards for critical facilities. • Support legislation that protects hazardous areas from being developed.
1–3 City of Tulsa Core Goal To create a disaster-resistant community and improve the safety and well-being of Tulsans by reducing deaths, injuries, property damage, and environmental and other losses from natural and technological hazards in a manner that advances community goals, quality of life, and results in a more livable, viable, and sustainable community. A detailed description of mitigation goals is presented in Chapter 4.
1.1.6 Definition of Terms A glossary of terms that are commonly used in hazard mitigation are included in Appendix A.
1.1.7 Point of Contact The primary point of contact for information regarding this plan is:
Charles Hardt Director of Public Works City of Tulsa 2000 Civic Center Tulsa, OK 74103 (918) 596-9608
The secondary point of contact is:
Paul Zachary Deputy Director for Engineering, Public Works City of Tulsa 2317 South Jackson Tulsa, OK 74107 (918) 596-9565
1–4 1.2 Community Description
Tulsa is faced with a variety of hazards, both natural and man-made. Although in recent years winter storms, tornadoes, and dam releases and floods in Tulsa and northeastern Oklahoma have made national headlines, in fact, any part of the city can be impacted by high winds, drought, hail, lightning, fire, hazardous materials events and other threats. In some cases, such as flooding and dam failure, the areas most at risk have been mapped and delineated. A map of the City of Tulsa with its major streets and highways is shown in Figure 1–1 on the following page.
1.2.1 Geography Latitude: 36.203 FIPS: 040143 Longitude: 95.90
The City of Tulsa is located in northeastern Oklahoma on the Arkansas River on lands that were once part of the Creek and Cherokee nations. Tulsa is Oklahoma’s second largest city and the county seat for Tulsa County. It is surrounded by a rapidly growing ring of suburban cities, including Broken Arrow, Bixby, Jenks, Owasso, and Sand Springs. Beyond those suburbs are quiet, backwoods areas. The Tulsa area is part hills and bluffs and part wide prairie, marking the dividing line between the ridges of the Ozarks in the East and the broad plains of the West. The city rests against the southward bend in the Arkansas River. Cattle and horse ranches and rich farmland lie almost within the shadow of urban buildings.
1.2.2 Climate Tulsa lies at an elevation of 700 feet above sea level, and is far enough south in latitude to miss the extreme cold of winter. The climate is essentially continental, characterized by rapid changes in temperature. The winter months are usually mild. Temperatures occasionally drop below zero, but only for a short time. Temperatures of 100 degrees or higher are often experienced from late July to early September. January’s average temperature is 40.6 degrees Fahrenheit and July’s average is 79.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
Annual precipitation totals range from a low of 23.24 inches in 1956 to 69.88 inches in 1973. The Tulsa area will receive a wide variety of precipitation (rain, sleet, hail, and snow) throughout any given year and averages 40.68 inches of rainfall each year.
April, May, and June account for 55 percent of all severe weather during a typical year, with 77 percent of the severe weather occurring between the months of March and July. June is the most active month of the year for hail, wind, floods, and tornadoes.
1–5 1–6 1.2.3 History The city now known as Tulsa was first settled by the Lockapoka Creek Indians between 1828 and 1836. Driven from their native Alabama by the forced removal of Indians from southeastern states, the Lockapokas established a new home at a site near Cheyenne and 18th Street. Under a large oak tree, they rekindled their ceremonial fire. This site was abandoned and destroyed during the Civil War, but afterwards the Lockapoka Creeks returned to their home along the Arkansas and relit the council fire.
In 1848, Lewis Perryman, a prominent Creek rancher, opened a cattle ranch and the first trading post near the Lockapoka settlement. His son George built a large white ranch house here, and in March 1878, a mail station was established at the Perryman store. The community served by the station was officially designated as "Tulsa."
The big oil strike at Glenpool in 1905, just 15 miles south of Tulsa, made Oklahoma and Indian Territory the center of oil speculation and exploration. At the time of statehood in 1907, Tulsa’s population was 7,298.
By 1920, Tulsa had grown to a city of 72,000, primarily due to oil discoveries. During the 1930s and 1940s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built levees along the Arkansas River, primarily to protect the critical oil refineries during the Second World War. During the war, Tulsa grew in importance as an aviation center, with the Spartan School of Aeronautics and the mile-long Douglas Aircraft plant, which produced bombers. Years later, McDonnell-Douglas and Rockwell International would contribute to the nation’s space program and national defense.
The 1950s and 60s saw Tulsa’s growth to the south and east, and into the watersheds of Mingo and Joe Creeks. Flooding on the inland creeks and along the Arkansas River became increasing problems as the town continued to expand. The Corps of Engineers completed the Keystone Dam, on the Arkansas River, in 1964. A more detailed discussion of Tulsa’s flood history is presented in Chapter 2.
Tulsa enjoyed a period of economic prosperity during the 1970s and early 80s, but with the oil bust of the mid 1980s, Tulsa’s economy took a downturn. City leaders searched for opportunities to diversify and to continue to improve the quality of life in one of America’s most livable cities. In the year 2000, the focus of community leaders has turned to inner-city redevelopment, sustainable growth, and safety from natural and man- made hazards.
1.2.4 Population and Demographics Tulsa has a 2000 Census population of 393,049 and a 2002 population of 396,781, which accounts for 48.6 percent of the population in the Tulsa Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The density of Tulsa is 2000 people per square mile, compared with the population density of Tulsa County at 882.6 persons per square mile. The population center is 36th Street South and Pittsburg Avenue. The location of population over age 65 is shown in Figure 1–2, and areas of poverty are shown on the map in Figure 1–3.
1–7 Table 1–1: City of Tulsa Population Data
Subject Number
Total Population 393,049 65 years and older 50,508 Poverty Status in 1999 (individuals) 54,121 Language spoken at home (speaks English less than “very well”) Spanish 13,333 Other Indo-European languages 1,486 Asian and Pacific Island languages 2,461
According to the 2000 Census, the City of Tulsa has a total of 179,491 housing units. Census data and Tulsa County Assessor’s Office data are structured differently and do not necessarily agree, so they are shown in separate tables, 1–2 and 1–3.
Table 1–2: City of Tulsa Housing Units, By Type (Census)
Housing Unit Type Number
Single-family 117,600 Multi-family 59,050 Mobile homes 2,626 Boat, RV, van, etc. 215 Total housing units 179,491
According to the Tulsa County Assessor’s Office, there are 129,794 properties with improvements within the City of Tulsa, with a total value, adjusted for fair market value of $17,235,107,007. Numbers of properties with improvements (buildings, garages, pools, storage, and so forth) and improvement values, by type, are shown in the table below. No land values are included. The locations of mobile homes and mobile home parks are shown on the map in Figure 1–4.
Table 1–3: City of Tulsa Properties and Values, By Improvement Type (Assessor)
Improvement Type on Number of Total Value Property Properties Single-family 115,791 $10,888,265,645 Multi-family 3,499 1,514,814,899 Residential mobile home 2,626 2,099,689 Commercial 3,122 1,306,767,476 Industrial 2,753 1,126,311,308 Other 2,003 2,396,847,990 Total 129,794 $17,235,107,007
1–8 1–9 1–10 1–11 1.2.5 Local Utilities—Lifelines Lifelines are defined as those infrastructure facilities that are essential to the function of the community and the well-being of its residents. They generally include transportation and utility systems. Transportation systems include interstate, US, and state highways, railways, waterways, ports and harbors, and airports. Utility systems include electric power, gas and liquid fuels, telecommunications, water, and wastewater.
The following is a list of companies or entities that supply utilities for the City of Tulsa.
Electric: AEP Public Service Company of Oklahoma Water: City of Tulsa Sewage: City of Tulsa Natural Gas: Oklahoma Natural Gas Telephone: Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Valor
1.2.6 Economy According to Dunn & Bradstreet, the City of Tulsa had 24,148 businesses in June 2002 with a combined corporate income of $127.5 billion, 94.6 percent of the corporate income in the Tulsa MSA. The Tulsa MSA accounts for 32 percent of the state’s gross domestic product, but only 23.4 percent of the population.
Corporate income in the Tulsa MSA was $134.8 billion in June 2002, up over 10 percent from June the previous year. The number of jobs increased 13.1 percent (47,274 jobs) in the past five years, or 2.6 percent annually. Approximately 28.6 percent of all jobs in the Tulsa MSA are in wealth producing industries such as mining, construction, manufacturing, transportation, communication, and utilities. This compares favorably to the national average of 25.2 percent.
The local inflation rate of 3.0 percent in 2001 was slightly above the national inflation rate. Tulsa’s cost of living and quality of life compare favorably to other cities. The average cost of living in the Tulsa MSA in 2001 was 94.1 percent of the national average.
1.2.7 Industry Petroleum refining and airplane manufacturing are leading industries in the Tulsa area. The largest sub-industry is business services (1,953 businesses), wholesale trade (1,380 businesses), and engineering, accounting, research, and management services (1,341 businesses).
1–12 1.2.8 Future Development Tulsa’s population growth rate is 0.7 percent annually. The Tulsa MSA is growing at 1.3 percent, the same as the national growth rate. Comparatively, the State of Oklahoma is growing at 1 percent annually.
Although the obvious direction of Tulsa’s growth is south and east, there is great interest among city leaders in redeveloping Downtown Tulsa as the center of culture and the historical heart of the city. The vision of Tulsa’s future is already evident in such projects as the Brady District, the Blue Dome District (around Second Street and Detroit Avenue), the Sixth Street Project (which includes the Village at Central Park), the Tribune Lofts at Main and Archer streets, and the Renaissance Uptown Apartments at Tenth Street and Denver Avenue.
One of the keys to the future development of Downtown Tulsa is making use of the structures already in place. In January 2002 Tulsa adopted the International Existing Building Code (IEBC), which makes it possible for entrepreneurs and property owners to use existing structures without being required to make major changes that would be prohibitively expensive.
Another key to future development, mentioned at the Mayor’s Vision Summit 2002 (July 9, 2002), is regional coordination. Tulsa’ leaders believe the City should expand its vision of development to include those surrounding jurisdictions whose futures are inextricably connected to Tulsa’s. These could include Bixby, Broken Arrow, Jenks, Glenpool, Sapulpa, Sand Springs, Owasso, Claremore, and Bartlesville.
Growth Trends The planning team examined Tulsa’s existing city limits, fenceline, and capital improvements plans to determine areas of future growth and expansion. The team examined the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission’s Comprehensive Plan and detailed District Plans to establish planned future land use, densities, and policies. Areas of future growth include infill and urban redevelopment of the central and older section of the city, the northwest part of Tulsa in Osage County, east of 145th East Avenue between Admiral Boulevard and 51st Street, the newly annexed 13 square miles in Wagoner County, and the southwest section of the city in the Mooser/Hager Creek basin.
Vacant available areas that are not expected to experience much growth pressure include north Tulsa County and the industrial area east of the Tulsa International Airport.
The City of Tulsa has about 61 square miles of vacant, developable land within its city limits, and another 40 square miles within its fencelines designated for future development. A “fenceline” is a narrow strip of annexed land around the perimeter of an area of un-annexed land that a community identifies and claims for future growth to protect the area for annexation.
Northwest-Osage County includes about 10 square miles of undeveloped annexed land, and another 12.5 square miles of undeveloped land within Tulsa’s fenceline. The west
1–13 loop of the Gilcrease Expressway is being extended to serve this area. The extension of other municipal utilities into the area, such as water and sanitary sewer, is expected to spur development. Due to the rugged nature of the terrain, development will most likely be residential.
North Tulsa County includes 26 square miles around which Tulsa has placed a fenceline. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area primarily as industrial and highway-oriented commercial. The wide expanses of the Bird Creek floodplain are set aside for open space.
Airport Industrial Area, from Tulsa International Airport east to the Rogers County line, encompasses some 14 square miles and is designated for industrial development. This area is served by U.S. Highway 169, the Mingo Valley Expressway. Because it is underlain by massive limestone deposits, it has been difficult and expensive to develop.
East Tulsa, between 145th East Avenue and the Tulsa-Wagoner County line and between Admiral Place and East 51st Street, includes 14 square miles of land planned for mixed uses, primarily residential. The area has been slow to develop due to its limestone outcroppings.
Newly Annexed Wagoner County Area consists of 13 square miles of Fair Oaks. The area is designated for mixed uses, and is served by the recently completed East Creek Turnpike.
The Mooser/Hager Creek Basins, located in southwest Tulsa, include about 10 square miles of scenic, rugged woodland. The area is served by U.S. Highway 75, and is experiencing some recent development activity. The highway corridor is expected to develop with commercial/business park and higher density residential uses, while the balance of the basin is expected to consist of mixed uses, primarily lower-density residential.
The floodplains of the future growth areas have been or are being identified and mapped, and new development will be regulated. The City’s ordinances prohibit development and fill in the floodplains. Stormwater detention requirements ensure that no adverse stormwater impact will result from new development. Tulsa’s stringent stormwater and floodplain management ordinances and development regulations require that new development occur outside of the 100-year floodplain, and not be damaged or damage other properties due to flooding. In addition, any new critical facilities will be protected to the 500-year flood level. Roadways and bridges are required to pass the 100-year regulatory flood.
The growth areas will all continue to be subject to non-site specific natural hazards, such as tornadoes, lightning, hail, winter storms, extreme heat, drought, expansive soils, urban fires, wildfires, earthquakes, and hazardous materials events. Dam and levee failures are not a problem for these future growth areas. The multi-hazard mitigation measures identified and recommended in this plan should lessen the impacts of natural and man- made hazards on future development and population of the community.
1–14 1.3 Regulatory Framework
This section contains the current City of Tulsa ordinances for land use, zoning, subdivision, stormwater management, stream management, and erosion management. It also lists the current building codes and fire insurance rating.
1.3.1 Comprehensive Planning and Zoning Tulsa’s Comprehensive Plan defines policies for providing guidance and direction of the city’s physical development. It covers ordinances for land use, zoning and subdivision, and the development of standards for transportation and public facilities. The original plan, adopted in 1924, contained Tulsa’s first zoning ordinances. It was revised in 1960, and again in 1976, when a land use plan was added.
The City’s zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations are in Title 42, Tulsa Revised Ordinances, “The Tulsa Zoning Code” (1/1/1997) Zoning and Property Restrictions.
1.3.2 Floodplain and Stormwater Management Tulsa has been a National Flood Insurance Program community since August 3, 1971, number 405381. Tulsa has also been a Class 3 CRS community since October 1, 2000. Refer to the section, “Community Rating System (CRS)” on page 1–16.
Stormwater management, stream management, floodplain management, and erosion control are regulated by Title 11-A, Tulsa Revised Ordinances, “Stormwater Drainage” Chapter 3 (1/1/1997), Watershed Development Regulations.
• Elevation certificates are maintained. • The City uses a freeboard of one (1) foot.
Tulsa has 29 master drainage plans, developed from 1978 to the present, that cover all floodplains in the City except the recently annexed area referred to as Fair Oaks. See “Flood and Stormwater Management Plans” on page 1–17, below, and Chapter 2, “Floods” for in-depth discussions of flooding.
1.3.3 Building Codes • Code for existing buildings—ICC International Existing Building Code (11/13/2001), August 2001. • Building code—Title 51 Building Code (1/1/1998) BOCA National Building Code, 13th Edition, 1996.
1.3.4 Fire Insurance Tulsa has a Public Protection Class rating of 3 as of June 1, 1994. The City is no longer rated by ISO.
1–15 1.4 Existing Hazard Mitigation Programs
To counter pertinent hazards, Tulsa has a host of programs that range from informing people about protection measures, warning the public of impending threats, requiring protection measures to be incorporated in new buildings, acquiring and clearing properties in high hazard areas, and constructing flood control projects. All efforts to mitigate the impact of hazards have helped, but they have not eliminated all potential problems.
The City is currently participating in several programs that address one or more hazards. These programs are described in the following sections.
1.4.1 Community Rating System (CRS) The CRS is a part of the National Flood Insurance Program that helps coordinate all flood-related activities of the City. Tulsa has participated in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) since 1971 and in the CRS since 1991. The City takes part in the following CRS activities:
• Public information activities • Mapping and regulatory activities • Flood damage reduction activities • Flood preparedness activities
Tulsa advanced from a Class 5 to a Class 3 community in 2000, making the City’s flood insurance rates the lowest in the country. The Class 3 rating allows Tulsa’s floodplain residents a 35 percent reduction in their flood insurance premium rates.
Tulsa has had 2,431 flood insurance claims totaling $37,422,249 since 1978.
1.4.2 Project Impact / Mayor’s Citizen Corps Project Impact was launched by FEMA in 1998 with a goal of building disaster-resistant communities that will work together to prevent damage and loss of life from disasters. The Tulsa area Project Impact is both a public and private effort that has more than 350 partners. It is an all-hazards program that organizes and promotes voluntary preparedness and mitigation measures. Tulsa was invited to become a Disaster-Resistant Community with Project Impact on June 3, 1998, and was awarded the 1998 “Most Outstanding Model Community.”
The Tulsa area Project Impact/Mayor’s Citizen Corps is involved in the following activities:
• Risk assessment • Geographic Information Systems (GIS) development
1–16 1.4.3 Flood and Stormwater Management Plans The first citywide master drainage plan was the Flood and Stormwater Management Plan 1990–2005. This plan prioritizes and coordinates the flood protection projects that are detailed in the city’s 29 master drainage plans. The last revision of the plan was September 7, 2001. (Refer to Table 2–1, Master Drainage Plans and Basins, in Chapter 2.) The plan oversees the following:
• Capital Improvement Program (see next section) • Non-Structural Mitigation/Acquisition Priority List
The City later developed the Flood and Stormwater Management Plan 1999-2014, published on September 10, 1998. It was developed in accordance with planning criteria from the Community Rating System (CRS), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). Although the 1999-2014 plan primarily dealt with flooding, it also addressed other natural hazards. The Flood and Stormwater Management Plan recommended stormwater capital improvements projects. The prioritized list of recommended stormwater projects is located in Appendix B.
1.4.4 Capital Improvements Plan The City of Tulsa’s Capital Improvements Plan lists approved street, building, water, sewer, and stormwater capital improvement needs, their costs, priority, and 5-year funding schedule. Capital improvements projects identified for hazard mitigation purposes—such as flood, tornadoes, high winds, and drought—are listed in Appendix C.
1.4.5 Emergency Operations Plan The Tulsa Emergency Management Agency’s Emergency Operations Plan contains a hazard analysis for eight potential disasters. This strategic planning guide coordinates the City’s preparedness and response to an emergency or disaster. While it is constantly kept updated, two new parts are planned:
• Public Works Department internal procedures • Post-disaster mitigation procedures
The warning siren coverage for the City of Tulsa is shown on the map in Figure 1–5.
1.4.6 Critical Facilities Critical facilities are defined differently by different organizations and agencies, but are usually classified as those facilities that, if put out of operation by any cause, would have a broadly adverse impact on the community as a whole.
FEMA’s definition includes shelters, police and fire stations, schools, childcare centers, senior citizen centers, hospitals, disability centers, vehicle and equipment storage facilities, emergency operations centers, and city halls. Since 9/11, FEMA has added banks and financial institutions to their critical facilities list. Tulsa’s critical facilities are listed in Appendix D and shown in Figure 1–6.
1–17 FEMA generally separates critical buildings and facilities into five categories:
• Essential facilities are essential to the health and welfare of the entire population and are especially important following hazard events. The potential consequences of losing them are so great that they should be carefully inventoried. They include hospitals and other medical facilities, police and fire stations, emergency operations centers, and schools. • Transportation systems include airways (airports), highways (bridges, overpasses, and roadbeds), railways (trackage, bridges, rail yards, and depots), and waterways (canals, locks, and ports). • Lifeline utility systems include potable water, wastewater, oil, natural gas, electric power, and communication systems. • High potential loss facilities are those that would have high financial costs associated with their loss, such as power plants, dams, and military installations. • Hazardous materials facilities include facilities housing industrial and hazardous materials, such as corrosives, explosives, flammable materials, radioactive materials, and toxins.
1.4.7 City of Tulsa Buildings The City has identified priority facilities, owned and operated by the City, essential to maintaining critical services during an emergency or disaster period. Initial vulnerability assessments have been conducted for the selected buildings/facilities to identify potential problem areas or risks that could impact City operations or business functions. City buildings are listed in Appendix E.
1–18 1–19 This page removed due to sensitive nature of information.
For more information, contact information can be located on page xviii. 1.5 The Planning Process
Because several of the hazard mitigation programs were developing or revising plans or activities during the year, it was determined that a coordinated, multi-hazard planning process was needed.
The Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan updates and expands the Flood and Stormwater Management Plan (see “Flood and Stormwater Management Plan” on page 1–17 for information). The City of Tulsa Department of Public Works is responsible for this plan, with assistance and participation of the Indian Nations Council of Governments (INCOG), the regional planning agency, and the Tulsa Area Emergency Management Agency (TAEMA).
Simply stated, a mitigation plan is the product of a rational thought process that reviews the hazards, measures their impacts on the community, identifies alternative mitigation measures, and selects and designs those that will work best for the community.
This plan addresses the following hazards:
Floods Expansive Soils Tornadoes Urban Fires High Winds Wildfires Lightning Earthquakes Hailstorms Hazardous Materials Events Severe Winter Storms Dam Failures Extreme Heat Levee Failures Drought
The planning for Tulsa followed a ten-step process, based on guidance and requirements of FEMA. The ten steps are described below.
1.5.1 Step One: Organize to Prepare the Plan (October 2001-November 2001) Citizens and professionals active in disaster planning, response, and mitigation provided important input in the development of the plan and recommended goals and objectives, mitigation measures, and priorities for actions.
The planning process was formally created by resolution of the City Council, which established the Tulsa Hazard Mitigation Citizens Advisory Committee (THMCAC) to oversee the planning effort.
1–21 The Committee consists of the five members of the Stormwater Drainage Advisory Board and the five members of the Project Impact Executive Committee. The THMCAC members are:
Stormwater Drainage Advisory Board Mitigation Planning Process • Dwayne Wilkerson, Chairman • June Mustari, Board Member • Royce Bentley, Board Member • Nancy Kincaid-Deacon, floodplain resident, citizen leader-activist • David Kollman, Board Member
Project Impact Advisory Board
• Sandy Cox, Chair, Project Impact and Mayor’s Citizens Corps • J.D. Metcalfe, former City Commissioner, member Utility Board, Board of Directors, Project Impact • John Westmoreland, Retired Vice- President, State Farm Insurance, Vice- Chair, Project Impact • Neal McNeill, former Tulsa City Attorney • Bob Roberts, American Red Cross
Supporting the Committee is the Tulsa Staff Technical Advisory Committee (TSTAC), which includes representatives of every city department that has a role in hazards protection, along with TAEMA and INCOG. Most of the detail work was done by a management team of the following staff and consultants:
• Mike L. Buchert, P.E., Team Leader, Assistant Director, Public Works • Kenneth Hill, Manager, Planning and Coordination • Brent Stout, Senior Engineer • Ann Patton, Executive Director, Tulsa Project Impact • Pat Hoggard, City Council Liaison • Laureen Gibson Gilroy, Community Affairs and Planning • Ron Flanagan, CFM, Principal Planner, R.D. Flanagan & Associates
1–22 • Janet Meshek, P.E., CFM, President, Meshek Engineering, Inc. • Gaylon Pinc, P.E., Manager, Environmental Engineering, INCOG
The expanded TSTAC met with the THMCAC four times during the year’s planning process. This included:
• Charles L. Hardt, P.E., Director, Public Works, and Chief Operations Officer, City of Tulsa • Paul D. Zachary, P.E., CFM, Deputy Director for Engineering Services • Mike McCool, Director, Tulsa Area Emergency Management Agency • Jack Page, P.E., CFM, City of Tulsa Floodplain Administrator & Deputy Director for Development Services • Deborah K. Stowers, P.E., CFM, Manager, Stormwater Design • Ray Jordan, P.E., Tulsa County Engineer • Kim MacLeod, Community Affairs & Planning • Clayton Edwards, Deputy Director for Environmental Operations • Larry Bottoms, Deputy Director for Public Facilities Maintenance • Greg Warren, ASLA, Park Department • Roger Sharp, Tulsa Fire Department • Rick Myscofski, Tulsa City-County Health Department • Brett Bailey, Tulsa Police Department • Charlie Jackson, Tulsa Police Department • Pat Treadway, Urban Development Department
Consultants:
• Janet K. Meshek, P.E., CFM, President, Meshek Engineering, Inc. • Ronald D. Flanagan, CFM, Principal Planner, R.D. Flanagan & Associates • French Wetmore, CFM, Senior Planner, French & Associates, Ltd.
The THMCAC met monthly at City Hall during the planning process to review progress, identify issues, receive task assignments, and advise the staff. Table 1–4 on the next page shows a list of THMCAC meetings and dates. See Appendix F for meeting agendas.
1–23 Table 1–4: Tulsa Hazard Mitigation Citizens Advisory Committee Meetings and Activities
Date Activity
Oct. 31, 2001 Initial Tulsa Staff Technical Advisory Committee (TSTAC) meeting to overview the planning process, timelines, and meeting schedules, draft a resolution, and identify hazards. Tulsa Hazard Mitigation Citizens Advisory Committee (THMCAC) meeting Nov. 13, 2001 TSTAC meeting Dec. 11, 2001 TSTAC meeting Dec. 19, 2001 THMCAC meeting: Overview of planning process, timelines, meeting schedule, draft resolution, and hazards identification. Jan. 8, 2002 TSTAC meeting Jan. 16, 2002 THMCAC meeting: Draft resolution and review planning process. Feb. 12, 2002 TSTAC meeting Feb. 20, 2002 THMCAC meeting: Identify mitigation measures and goals and discuss hazards workshop. March 12, 2002 TSTAC meeting March 20, 2002 THMCAC meeting: Identify hazards and agencies. April 9, 2002 TSTAC meeting April 10, 2002 TSTAC and Agency Workshop planning meeting April 17, 2002 THMCAC meeting: Convened at HM Workshop, 4/23/02 April 23, 2002 Regional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Workshop, Tulsa Garden Center May 7, 2002 TSTAC meeting May 15, 2002 THMCAC meeting: Review hazards and mitigation measures. June 11, 2002 TSTAC meeting June 13, 2002 Regional Hazard Mitigation Measures Workshop, Tulsa Homebuilders Association June 19, 2002 THMCAC meeting: Review workshop mitigation measures and review recommended Capital Improvements Projects. July 10, 2002 TSTAC meeting July 17, 2002 THMCAC meeting July 18, 2002 Tulsa Stormwater Drainage Advisory Board meeting: Hazard Mitigation Report July 19, 2002 Tulsa All-City/Agency Public Information Officer meeting Aug. 1, 2002 TSTAC public forum planning/project status meeting Aug. 9, 2002 T Staff/Agency public forum planning meeting Aug. 20, 2002 Public meeting at Union High School: Review recommended mitigation measures and hazard mitigation action plan Aug. 21, 2002 THMCAC meeting, City Hall: Review public meeting Sept. 10, 2002 TSTAC meeting, City Hall Sept. 18, 2002 THMCAC meeting, City Hall: Review final plan recommendations, time schedule
1–24 Date Activity
Oct. 8, 2002 TSTAC meeting: Review final plan draft Oct. 16, 2002 THMCAC meeting, City Hall: Review Safe and Secure Plan Oct. 23, 2002 Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission committee work session: Tulsa Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan overview/orientation Oct. 30, 2002 THMCAC meeting: Review/approval of Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Nov. 5, 2002 City Council Public Works Committee, Review of Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, consider resolution. Nov. 6, 2002 THMCAC Meeting, City Hall; Review, recommend approval of Final Plan document Nov. 12, 2002 City Council Public Works Committee review of HM Plan Nov. 13, 2002 Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission: Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan presentation, adoption, and recommendation Nov. 21, 2002 City Council Public hearing on Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (continued 12/05/02) Dec. 3, 2002 City Council Public Works Committee review of Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Dec. 5, 2002 City Council public hearing on Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan: Approval and adoption Dec. 10, 2002 City Council Public Works Committee, Resolution amending the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Comprehensive Plan, adopting the Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Dec. 12, 2002 Approval of Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan by Mayor, submission to Oklahoma Department of Civil Emergency Management
1.5.2 Step Two: Involve the Public (November 2001 – October 2002) The THMCAC and the TSTAC management team undertook a number of initiatives to inform the public of this effort and to solicit their input. These activities included news releases, articles in City Life, public meetings, progress reports on the City’s web site, speaker’s bureau talks, and maximum use of the Project Impact committees and partners. A Public Works comment form and a Flooding and Drainage Problem comment form were distributed. All meetings of the THMCAC were publicly posted, as required by ordinance. Public meetings were held at the beginning of the planning process. Workshops were used to review the hazards and to identify and develop mitigation measures. These workshops were held at the Tulsa Garden Center on April 23, 2002, and at the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Homebuilder’s Association, June 13, 2002. A public meeting was held on August 20, 2002, at Union High School to review the final draft.
1.5.3 Step Three: Coordinate with Other Agencies and Organizations (November 2001 – August 2002) There are many public agencies, private organizations, and businesses that contend with natural hazards. Management team members contacted them to collect information on the hazards, and determine how their programs could best support the City’s mitigation program.
1–25 The Public Works Department, with input and assistance from other agencies and organizations, manages the CRS, Project Impact, and the stormwater management planning process. The Emergency Operations Plan is administered under the Tulsa Area Emergency Management Agency (TAEMA), but the Public Works Department plays a key role during most emergencies and is the Incident Commander during certain events, including flooding. The CRS and Stormwater Plan are flood- and stormwater-oriented, while Project Impact and the Emergency Operations Plan deal with multiple hazards.
Among the organizations and agencies contacted were:
Federal Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) US Army Corps of Engineers National Weather Service (NWS) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) US Fish and Wildlife Service US Geological Survey
National Non-Profit American Red Cross State Oklahoma Department of Civil Emergency Management Oklahoma Water Resources Board • State National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Coordinator • State Dam Safety Coordinator Oklahoma Conservation Commission Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation Oklahoma Department of Labor Oklahoma Geological Survey Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
Regional Indian Nation Council of Governments
County Tulsa County Tulsa City/County Health Department Tulsa Area Emergency Management Agency
1–26 Tulsa Tulsa Project Impact Mayor’s Citizen Corps Mayor’s Office for Neighborhoods, Mayor’s Good Neighbor Alliance Community Service Council Tulsa Area Agency on Aging Tulsa Fire Department Tulsa Police Department
Other Communities The planning process also actively involved the adjacent jurisdictions and communities. A multi-jurisdictional plan was developed for the Polecat Creek watershed, some 370 square miles, and individual plans were developed for Creek County, Washington County, and the cities of Bartlesville, Sapulpa, Glenpool, Bixby, and Jenks. Each community had staff technical advisory committees and citizen advisory committees appointed by the local governing bodies and designated by official resolution. These communities were invited to participate in Tulsa’s planning process, and many staff and Citizen Advisory Committee members attended Tulsa-sponsored committee and public meetings and hazard mitigation workshops.
1.5.4 Step Four: Assess the Hazard (November 2001 – December 2001)
In 1998, Tulsa’s Project Impact began identifying natural and man-made hazards that affect Tulsa. Project Impact assembled community leaders and disaster professionals from throughout the community to identify those hazards to which Tulsa’s citizens and property were most vulnerable. A comprehensive list of over 20 natural and man-made hazards were initially considered for investigation:
Natural Hazards Considered: Dam Break Summer Heat Earthquake Drought Flood Lightning Hail Tornado Winter/Ice Storm Wildfire Man-Made Hazards Considered: Bioterrorism Incident Transportation Hazardous Materials Chemical Terrorism Infectious Pandemic Civil Disturbance/Riot Utility Outage Cyber Terrorism Nuclear Incident Fixed Facility Hazardous Materials
1–27 The Project Impact Citizens Advisory Committee, disaster staff professionals, and the Indian Nations Council of Governments (INCOG), reduced this list to the seven hazards most likely to impact the Tulsa area. The hazards to be initially assessed included: floods, dam breaks, hail, snow and ice storms, summer drought and heat, tornadoes, and hazardous materials releases.
The results of the initial Project Impact/INCOG assessment were mapped in GIS, and published, Community Risk Assessment, City of Tulsa and Tulsa County, November 2001. The analysis of these seven hazards included their impacts upon critical facilities, on society, the environment, the economy, and on future development.
City of Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
In 2001, the City of Tulsa applied to the Oklahoma Department of Civil Emergency Management and FEMA for a Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) project to further develop and refine Tulsa’s multi-hazard mitigation planning process and plan. The State approved Tulsa’s HMGP application to develop a multi-hazard mitigation plan in conformance with the Oklahoma Strategic All-Hazards Mitigation Plan. The State Plan identified 10 hazards which should be addressed by the local plans, including: floods, dam failures, tornadoes, severe thunderstorm winds and hail, earthquakes, winter storms, urban and wildfires, hazardous materials incidents, drought, and terrorism.
The Tulsa Hazard Mitigation Citizens Advisory Committee reviewed the natural and man-made hazards that could potentially impact the Tulsa area and selected and prioritized the hazards to be included in the study. The management team collected data on the hazards from available sources, including historical incidents and disaster declarations, records from the National Climatic Data Center, input from federal and state emergency management agencies, the National Weather Service, local governmental entities, and community service organizations, such as the Red Cross. No new engineering studies were undertaken, except for floodplain management data collection and analysis. The hazard assessment justification and methodology are included in Chapters 2 and 3, with the discussion of each hazard.
The Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan addresses 15 hazards. These are listed in Table 1–5, below, along with how they were identified and why they were included in the Plan.
Table 1–5: How and Why these Hazards were Selected
Hazard How Identified Why Identified Floods • Review of FEMA and City • 10% of City land is located in floodplain maps floodplains • Review of Disaster Declarations • 1984 flood caused $180 million in • 8,690 buildings in the floodplains damage • 123 NFIP Repetitive Loss • 1984 flood killed 14 people Properties • Flood damage occurs every year • Historical floods and damages • Over $1 billion of property at risk (detailed in Chapter 2)
1–28 Hazard How Identified Why Identified Tornadoes • Review of recent disaster • Tulsa is located in “Tornado declarations Alley” • Input from Emergency Manager • An average of 52 tornadoes per • Input from citizens’ year strike Oklahoma questionnaires • Recent disaster events and • Consensus of Hazard Mitigation damage Citizens Advisory Committee • Oklahoma City tornado of 1999 • Review of data from the National killed 42 people and destroyed Climatic Data Center 899 buildings • All citizens and buildings are at risk • 8 deaths, and over $350 million in property damage in 50 years in Tulsa County High Winds • National Weather Service data • 147 high wind-related events in • Loss information provided by Tulsa County in the last 5 years, national Insurance Companies and over $400,000 in damage Lightning • National Climatic Data Center • Oklahoma ranks 15th in lightning information and statistics related casualties • 88 deaths and 243 injuries over 36 years due to lightning Hailstorms • National Climatic Data Center • 33 hail damage events in Tulsa and State Disaster Declarations over the last 5 years • Over $3 million in property damage Severe Winter • Review of past disaster • Severe winter storms are an Storms declarations annual event in the Tulsa area • Input from Tulsa Area • Wide-spread economic disruption Emergency Management Agency • Massive public utility outages (TAEMA) • Two winter storm-related Federal • Input from Tulsa Department of Disaster Declarations in the past Public Works 2 years, requiring over $330 • Input from area utility companies million in Federal assistance Extreme Heat • Review of number of heat-related • TAEMA and local community service deaths and injuries during hot organizations have made heat- Oklahoma summers related deaths a high priority • Review of data from National • High percentage of poor and Climatic Data Center and elderly populations at risk National Center for Disease • 44 heat-related deaths in Control Oklahoma in the last 5 years Drought • Historical vulnerability to drought, • Continuing mid-west and western the “Dust Bowl” era drought and impacts on • Recent (2002) drought and water Oklahoma communities, shortages in Bartlesville including neighboring Bartlesville • Input from Tulsa Utility Board and • Acute awareness of Oklahoma’s Department of Public Works population to the severe results of drought • Need to ensure adequate long-
1–29 Hazard How Identified Why Identified term-water resources for Tulsa’s metropolitan area population Expansive • Input from INCOG • Expansive soils are prevalent in Soils • Input from City Building the Tulsa area Inspections Department • Damage to buildings from expansive soils can be mitigated • Review of Soil Conservation data with public information and • Input from Oklahoma Department building code provision of Transportation Urban Fires • Data and input from the Tulsa • Older, deteriorating frame homes Fire Department with substandard heating • Severe winter storms • Continuing loss of life and property due to house fires Wildfires • Input from Tulsa Fire Department • Fires of the urban/rural interface • Input from area Rural Fire Depts. threaten Tulsa properties • Hundreds of miles of Tulsa’s • Input from surrounding county & perimeter are exposed and community fire departments vulnerable to wildfires • Input from State Fire Marshal Earthquakes • Historic records of area • Tulsa area has a history of mild earthquakes earthquakes • Input from Oklahoma Geological • Tulsa County has experienced Survey earthquakes on the average of • Input from USGS once every 5 years Hazardous • Input from Local Emergency • Many hazardous materials sites Materials Planning Committee (LEPC) scattered throughout the Events • Input from TAEMA community • Input from Oklahoma Dept. of • Major trafficways expose large Environmental Quality populations to potential trafficway • Input from Emergency First haz-mat incidents Responders (Tulsa Fire and Police Departments) Dam Failures • Keystone Dam 15 miles • Population and buildings below upstream from Tulsa dam are very vulnerable in event • Dam releases and floods in 1986 of release or dam failure and 1989 • Dam break/release contingency • Input from US Army Corps of plan needs updating Engineers (USACE) • Warning systems need to be • Input from Okla. Water updated and refined Resources Board, (OWRB), Dam • Various dam release rates, i.e., Safety Division 250, 350, 450 cfs should be GIS • Input from Tulsa Hazard mapped, and properties at risk Mitigation Citizens Advisory identified Committee (THMCAC) Levee Failures • Historic flooding behind levees • City considering redevelopment • Input from Dept. of Public Works options for areas behind levees • Input from USACE
1–30 1.5.5 Step Five: Assess the Problem (November 2001 – February 2002) The hazard data were analyzed in light of what it means to public safety, health, buildings, transportation, infrastructure, critical facilities, and the economy. Much of the initial work for Steps 4 and 5 had already been done by INCOG as a Project Impact assignment. INCOG prepared several analyses using its geographic information system (GIS). The City used GIS modeling and historical data to estimate potential losses from the various hazards. The discussion of the problem and vulnerability assessment for each hazard is presented for floods in Chapter 2, and other hazards in Chapter 3.
1.5.6 Step Six: Set Goals (February 2002 –March 2002) Project and community hazard mitigation goals and objectives for Tulsa were set by the THMCAC to guide the development of the Plan. The goals, in the national and state context are discussed in Chapter 1, and individual hazard goals and the goals-setting process are described in Chapter 4.
1.5.7 Step Seven: Review Possible Mitigation Measures (March 2002 – July 2002) A wide variety of mitigation measures that can affect hazards or the damage from hazards were examined. These mitigation activities are organized under the following six categories (see Chapter 4, “Mitigation Strategies,” for a more detailed description of each category):
1. Public Information and Education—Outreach projects and technical assistance 2. Preventive Activities—Zoning, building codes, stormwater ordinances 3. Structural Projects—Levees, reservoirs, channel improvements, safe rooms 4. Property Protection—Acquisition, retrofitting, insurance 5. Emergency Services—Warning, sandbagging, evacuation 6. Natural Resource Protection—Wetlands protection, best management practices
1.5.8 Step Eight: Draft an Action Plan (July 2002 – October 2002) The results of the mitigation activities review are summarized in the Action Plan. The Action Plan specifies what will be done, by what office, and by what deadline. The draft Action Plan was widely circulated for comment and reviewed at public meetings. It is presented in Chapter 5.
1.5.9 Step Nine: Adopt the Plan (November 2002 –December 2002) After the public review, the THMCAC settled on the Final Plan and submitted it to the Mayor and City Council for action. It was also submitted through the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission and adopted as a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
1–31 1.5.10 Step Ten: Implement, Evaluate, and Revise (January 2003 − 2008) The City’s adoption of the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan is only the beginning of this effort. City offices, other agencies, and private partners will implement the Plan’s activities. The THMCAC will monitor implementation progress, evaluate the effectiveness of the actions, and periodically recommend revisions to the action items. Progress in the implementation of the Plan and the recommended action/mitigation measures will be assessed annually. The Plan will be updated every five years.
1–32
Chapter 2: Floods
Chapter 2: Floods
Flooding is defined as the accumulation of water within a waterbody and the overflow of excess water onto adjacent floodplain lands. Floodplains are the lands adjoining the channel of a river, stream, ocean, lake, or other watercourse or waterbody that are susceptible to flooding. 2.1 Hazard Profile Floods are the most common and widespread of all natural disasters in the United States—except fire.
· Flooding has caused the deaths of more than 10,000 people since 1900. · United States property damage from flooding now totals over $1 billion each year. · In 1987 FEMA concluded that over 9 million households and $390 billion in property are at risk from the 1-percent-
annual-chance flood. Floods have been Tulsa’s most common · In most years flooding is and most costly natural hazard involved in three quarters of Federal Disaster declarations. · Floods claim about 140 lives each year, making them the most deadly hazard in the United States. · Floods are also responsible for more damage to property each year than any other type of weather hazard.
Flash floods usually result from intense storms dropping large amounts of rain within a brief period. The two key elements are rainfall intensity and duration, but topography, soil conditions, and ground cover also play important roles.
2–1 Flash floods occur with little or no warning and can reach peak flow within a few minutes. Waters from flash floods move with great force and velocity and can roll boulders, tear out trees, destroy buildings, and sweep away bridges. These walls of water can reach heights of 10 to 30 feet and generally carry large amounts of debris. Most flood deaths are due to flash floods.
The City of Tulsa’s 213 square miles contain 56 creeks and watersheds that drain to the Arkansas River or Bird Creek, a tributary to the Verdigris River (see Figure 2-1 for Tulsa’s drainage basins). Although rainfall averages 36 inches per year, because of Tulsa’s geographical location, thunderstorms can, and have, dumped up to 15 inches of rain on the city in a few hours causing widespread flooding and devastating flash floods.
2–2
2.2 History of Tulsa’s Flooding Problems
Tulsa has grown up with flooding. Many of the causes are related to Tulsa’s geographical location. The city is set on a wide river, in a zone of violent spring and autumn storms, and on a frontier where people believed they had a right to do as they wished with their land.
Like most American communities located on waterways, Tulsa has a long history of flooding. In 1908, only a year after statehood, flooding on the Arkansas River caused $250,000 in damages ($14.73 million in 1997 dollars).
By 1920, Tulsa had grown to a city of 72,000, primarily due to oil discoveries. In June 1923, the Arkansas River flooded Tulsa’s Water Treatment Plant, causing $500,000 in damages ($13.37 million in 1997 dollars) and leaving 4,000 homeless. City fathers responded by moving the critical facility to higher ground, and acquiring 2,800 acres of floodplain for park, recreation and open-space purposes.
2.2.1 The Structural Era of Flood Control Meanwhile, around the nation, the 1920s ushered in what has been called the Structural Era of Flood Control (approximately 1928 to 1968). In response to the Great Mississippi River Flood of 1927, Congress passed the Lower Mississippi Flood Control Act of 1928 authorizing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to construct dams and levees to control flooding.
During the 1930s and 1940s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built levees along the Arkansas River, primarily to protect the oil refineries during the war years. In the post- war years, Tulsa’s growing population spread into the floodplains of inland streams, such as Coal, Mingo, and Joe Creeks. Major floods occurred in 1957 and 1959 on the Arkansas and inland creeks, spurring demand for major flood control on the Arkansas River. Floods in May and July of 1961 caused citizens to demand a halt to building in areas subject to flood hazard. However, a Tulsa City attorney’s legal opinion issued in 1962 stated that the city could not block land development based on susceptibility to flooding. The Arkansas River’s Keystone Dam above Tulsa was completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1964.
2.2.2 The Regulatory Era of Floodplain Management Nationally, flood losses continued to rise despite billions of dollars in federal flood control projects. The dilemma prompted a decade of actions that could be called the Regulatory Era of Floodplain Management, generally from 1968 to 1978.
Flood control structures offered spot protection, but sometimes caused offsite problems, and produced a false sense of security that lured more development into floodplains. To compound this problem, the value of the induced growth was counted as a benefit in project evaluations.
2–4 In the 1960s, this problem was illuminated in the landmark House Document 465, the Unified National Program for Managing Flood Losses. In response, the late 1960s brought Presidential Executive Order 11296 encouraging floodplain management, and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, which made federally subsidized flood insurance available to communities that agreed to adopt minimum floodplain regulations to stem future losses.
Tulsa’s progress in addressing flood problems usually followed in the wake of serious flood events. After the 1970 Mother’s Day flood left $1 Emergency workers prepare a rescue line for people million in damages, Tulsa entered the trapped by Little Joe Creek in 1968 new National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Floods on Bird, Flat Rock, and Haikey Creeks damaged Tulsa and many suburban communities in September and December 1971, and Bird Creek again in 1973.
Year of the Floods, 1974 The Year of the Floods, 1974, brought April and May floods that left $744,000 in damages ($2.11 million in 1994 dollars) on Bird Creek. After another flood on June 8, 1974, caused $18 million in damage, Tulsa began a fundamental reassessment of its approach to floodplain management. More flooding in September and November 1974 heightened the intensity of the debate. In October, Congress authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to perform an urban floodplain study of the Tulsa area, and in November 1974, Mingo and Joe Creeks flooded again, and the Keystone Dam filled to capacity.
Angry citizens and flood victims demanded that the City enforce NFIP regulations, and that all development that contributed to flooding be halted until Tulsa’s existing problems were solved. Developers objected strenuously.
The 1976 Memorial Day Flood The Memorial Day Flood of 1976 killed three people and caused $34 million in damages. In the aftermath, the City developed basic floodplain management goals and objectives to guide the planning process, drafted comprehensive drainage regulations, and began a pilot master drainage planning program for the newly developing Vensel Creek basin in south Tulsa. Floodplain policies were accepted, and detention storage of urban stormwater runoff for new developments was instituted amid much controversy.
2–5 2.2.3 The Nonstructural Era of Stormwater Management The Nonstructural Era, a third major phase of stormwater management, began with the President's 1978 Water Policy Initiative. It recognized the need to place nonstructural techniques on a par with flood-control structures and the importance of preserving the natural values of floodplains and wetlands.
To curb continuing losses, in the early 1980s the federal government developed the Federal Inter-Agency Hazard Mitigation process. In the days after disasters, federal teams were dispatched to identify hazard mitigation opportunities—basically ways to make the response to each disaster reduce the scope of the next one. The mitigation concept focused on correcting the causes of losses, including removing, raising, or flood-proofing the most vulnerable of the damaged buildings.
The 1984 Memorial Day Flood The 1984 Memorial Day Flood, the worst in the city's history, was Tulsa's watershed point. After a muggy Sunday afternoon, a stalled cool front produced some 15 inches of midnight rain, centered over Mingo Creek but also extending across most of the city. The results were disastrous.
The Memorial Day Flood of 1984 killed 14 people and caused $180 million in damages, and reenergized Tulsa’s commitment to floodplain management. The City responded by enacting a rebuilding and repair moratorium, acquiring 300 flood-prone properties, and a 228-lot mobile home park. A 1987 General Obligation Bond Issue, approved by the Flash flooding on Mingo Creek killed 14 people voters, allocated $1.4 on Memorial Day 1984 million for continuation of the basin-wide floodplain master drainage planning process. Thirteen additional watersheds were authorized for master planning.
A Unified Program A Unified Program was created after the 1984 flood. The work didn't end with the initial flood response and recovery. In fact, that was only the first step in a long and continuing journey to make Tulsa safe from floods. The 1984 flood persuaded Tulsans that a coordinated, comprehensive stormwater management program was needed that reached from the rooftop to the river.
2–6 A citizens advisory committee, the Stormwater Drainage Advisory Board, was established in 1985 by the City Commission to oversee the floodplain management planning process, and continues to function to date. Also in 1985, the Department of Stormwater Management centralized responsibility for all city flood, drainage, and stormwater programs.
A stormwater utility fee was established by ordinance in 1986 to operate the program. The utility fee ensures stable funds for maintenance and management, independent of shifting political winds. The ordinance allocates the entire fee exclusively for floodplain and stormwater management activities.
The 1986 Arkansas River Flood The 1986 Arkansas River Flood was a first test of the new stormwater management program. It also served as a reminder of the limited protection provided by Keystone Dam. Between September and October 1986, Keystone Reservoir filled to capacity, forcing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to release water at the rate of 310,000 cubic feet per second. Downstream flooding was inevitable. At Tulsa, a private west bank levee failed, Forced releases at Keystone Dam have resulted in a causing $1.3 million in damages to private levee failure and flooding in Tulsa 64 buildings. The city fielded its hazard mitigation team and cleared 13 substantially damaged structures.
Institutionalization and Acceptance In the 1990s Tulsans approved a change in city government from the mayor-commission form to the mayor-council form. A new Department of Public Works consolidated all public works services. Stormwater management was reintegrated and finally institutionalized into the city structure. Today, storm drainage management is an accepted part of the city's services.
Tulsa's system has not been tested by a catastrophic rainfall since 1986, but the system has handled smaller rains well. Leaders believe improved maintenance, continuing capital projects, stringent regulations, and aggressive citizen awareness programs will reduce, but cannot entirely eliminate, future flood losses.
The greatest testimony to the program is that, since comprehensive regulations were adopted in 1977, the city has no record of flood damages to any building that complies with those regulations.
2–7 In the early 1990s, FEMA ranked Tulsa first in the nation for its floodplain management program, allowing Tulsans to enjoy the nation's lowest flood insurance rates. The program was also honored with FEMA's 1992 Outstanding Public Service Award and the Association of State Floodplain Managers has twice given Tulsa its Local Award for Excellence.
Leaders consider the Tulsa program still in progress. They know that much remains to be done, and that there is an inevitable flood ahead. The program continues to evolve.
2.2.4 The Watershed Era of Comprehensive Management
The Great Midwest Floods on the Mississippi and other heartland rivers in 1993 caused more than $10 billion in damages to 72,000 structures and, in some cases, entire communities.
According to Dr. Gilbert F. White, a leader in national floodplain management for the past 50 years, and Larry Larson, Executive Director of the Association of State Floodplain Managers, the 1993 floods launched a fourth era in the nation's attempts to stem disaster losses--the era of ”Comprehensive Management.” Although Tulsa was not directly affected, local leaders took advantage of the lessons that the nation was learning.
This new era looks above and beyond the floodplains, beyond response to a specific disaster, and takes a longer and broader view.
According to White, comprehensive management “examines in an integrated fashion the whole regional floodplain environment…and takes into account the human values, the local resource decisions, the whole pattern of local community management, as it is related to flood hazard and the floodplain."
"Until this year," says Larson, "the government mostly helped people rebuild at risk of the next flood. A monumental change has occurred in federal attitudes and programs that assist people and communities in flood recovery."
Part of this change involves communities taking greater responsibility for disaster preparedness and mitigation.
Over the past 50 years most Americans have come to expect that when flood disasters strike, the federal government will come rushing in to take charge of rescue efforts and pay the bills. The increasing number of disaster declarations and their mounting costs, make it doubtful this practice can continue indefinitely. This is particularly true with floods, since many such events can be viewed as the result of a community’s own risky development practices and lack of foresight. To qualify for future federal funding, communities are required to prepare hazard mitigation plans aimed at preventing disasters before they happen, or limiting damages if they do occur.
2–8 Another new guideline for floodplain management that is gaining acceptance among government officials and planning professionals is that development shall create “no adverse impact.” This strategy requires that any development activity be evaluated for the impacts it will have on flood stages, velocity, flows, and erosion or sedimentation anywhere in the present and future watershed. If adopted, this standard would reduce flooding and help ensure that future development activity both in and out of the floodplain is part of a locally adopted management plan. It would also measurably strengthen local management, planning and mitigation activities.
2–9 2.3 Regulation
Experience showed that the National Flood Insurance Program's minimum standard is insufficient for Tulsa. Therefore, the city's regulations exceed NFIP standard in several important ways, highlighted below.
2.3.1 Ultimate Watershed Urbanization As watersheds develop, runoff usually becomes deeper and faster and floods become more frequent. Water that once lingered in hollows, meandered around oxbows, and soaked into the ground now speeds downhill, shoots through pipes, and sheets off rooftops and paving.
Insurance purposes require that NFIP floodplain maps must be based on existing watershed development, but unless plans and regulations are based on future watershed urbanization, development permitted today may flood tomorrow as uphill urbanization increases runoff.
Tulsa enforces the NFIP minimum regulations and maps to retain eligibility for federal flood insurance, and also enforces its own more extensive maps and regulations, based on ultimate watershed urbanization as forecast in the comprehensive plan.
Tulsa welcomes growth, so long as it does not flood or cause flooding elsewhere
2.3.2 Watershed-Wide Regulation Floodplains are only part of flood-management considerations. Water gathers and drains throughout entire watersheds, from uplands to lowlands. Each watershed is an interactive element of the whole. A change at one place can cause changes elsewhere, whether planned or inadvertent.
2–10 2.4 Master Drainage Planning
The backbone of Tulsa's stormwater management system is its master drainage planning. The planning process involves extensive citizen participation, including hundreds of public meetings over the past decade.
2.4.1 Master Drainage Plans Tulsa has completed master drainage plans for virtually all drainage basins. Each plan is a comprehensive, watershed-wide study that documents existing floodplain information and recommends solutions for flooding and drainage problems.
A master drainage plan (MDP) is developed within the context of the community and, therefore, takes into account community values, existing conditions, goals and objectives, and future plans. The master drainage plan process recognizes that a watershed is an interrelated unit, and that any change in one component affects the entire drainage system. The result is a plan for actions and projects with defined costs and Tulsa has comprehensive drainage benefits. plans for each watershed
The following is a summary of the primary components of the MDP:
· Applicable laws and regulations · Basin resource inventory · Basin hydrology-quantification of stormwater run-off amounts · Basin hydraulics and delineation and determination of floodplain boundaries · Flooding problems and damages · Evaluation and presentation of the most cost-effective approaches for addressing the identified flooding and drainage problems
The plans contain regulatory floodplain maps superimposed on aerial photo topography. Recent plans provide lists of all buildings located in the floodplain, their finished floor elevations, base flood elevations, and depth of flooding. The development of each master drainage plan involved extensive citizen participation. Public meetings were advertised, public input sought, and review sessions held at key points throughout the planning process for each basin plan.
Over $1.4 million for watershed-wide master drainage planning studies was submitted to the citizens of Tulsa, and approved in the 1986 General Obligation Bond issue. The bond
2–11 issue financed the development of comprehensive master drainage plans for the Coal, Dirty Butter, Flat Rock, Southwest (Mooser, Nickle, Hager), Elm, Upper Mingo,
Table 2–1: Master Drainage Plans and Basins
Creeks Year Creeks Year Plan Name Watersheds Completed Plan Name Watersheds Completed
Bird Bird 1993 Mingo Creek Upper Mill/Jones Upper Mill 1993 Cherry/Red Fork Cherry 1982 (Update) Upper Jones Red Fork Upper Audubon
Coal Coal 1987 Upper Mid Mingo Audubon 1981 Bell Crow Crow 1989 Brookhollow Swan Fulton Travis Park SouthPark Sugar Dirty Butter Dirty Butter 1987 Upper Tup/Brook Upper Tupelo 1994 Downtown Central Bus. Dist. 1993 (Update) Upper Brookhollow
Elm Elm 1988 Upper Mingo Alsuma 1988 Catfish Flatrock Flatrock 1987 Ford Valley View Mainstem
Fred Fred 1988 Northwest Bigheart 1989 Harlow Fry Ditch #2 Fry Ditch #2 1989 Parkview Oak Garden City Garden City 1987 Lower Basin
Haikey Haikey 1989 Perryman Perryman 1988 Little Haikey South Tulsa Basin South Tulsa 1992 Joe Mainstem Mainstem, Joe No Study Southwest Mooser 1988 Joe, East & West Upper Joe, E/W 1989 Nickel Hager Little Joe Little Joe (Upper) 1992 Spunky Adams Adams 1989 South Fork Joe Joe, South Fork 1982 Center Pond Mingo Creek Mainstem (USACE) No MDP Reservoir Spunky Cooley Cooley 1980 Vensel Vensel 1978 Lower Mingo Little 1991 Quarry Vensel (Update) Vensel 1994 Eagle Douglas
Lower Mid Mingo Tupelo 1980 Mill Jones
2–12 Northwest (Oak, Harlow, Bigheart, Parkview), Spunky-Adams, Crow, Fred, Fry Ditch #2, Haikey, and the East and West Branches of Joe Creek. The plans for the drainage basins were developed with full citizen participation, in part because the City realized that the citizens would have to approve any subsequent funding packages for program implementation.
Tulsa has 56 identified creek and drainage basins, which have been studied and planned in 29 basin-wide master drainage plans and updates. Master drainage plans and the dates they were completed are listed in Table 2-1, on the previous page.
2.4.2 Mingo Creek Project The 61-square-mile Mingo watershed drains the eastern one-third of the city but has accounted for two-thirds of Tulsa's flood damages in recent years. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Tulsa worked together in the late 1970s to develop a plan for Mingo flood control, which Congress authorized for construction in 1986.
The Corps estimates that the completed $143 million project will prevent $32 million in average annual flood damages. With an average annual cost of about $16 million, the Mingo project has a benefit-to-cost ratio of 2 to 1.
The local cooperation agreement signed by the City helped forge new legislation written into the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, which also gives communities credit for past construction projects. The federal government recognized that, before 1986, Tulsa had constructed some Mingo channels and detention basins that were compatible with the Corps project. The federal government agreed to give the Tulsa credit toward its local share plus reimbursement for the federal share of prior expenditures that pertain to the project.
2.4.3 Flood and Stormwater Management Plan, 1990-2005 Institutionalization and acceptance of the stormwater management program continued in the 1990s after Tulsans approved a change from the mayor-commission to the mayor- council form of government. Stormwater management programs and activities were consolidated into the new Department of Public Works, along with all other public works services.
Beginning in 1989, an effort was made to bring the results of the existing 22 basin-wide master Tulsa’s citizens have been involved in every stage of drainage plans together into a single, stormwater management planning comprehensive city-wide document:
2–13 The City of Tulsa Flood and Stormwater Management Plan, 1990-2005. The planning process took several years to complete, and required extensive public involvement and participation. This citywide plan ranks and prioritizes hundreds of recommended projects, to guide capital scheduling.
The process was supervised by the Stormwater Drainage Advisory Board, and public meetings were held throughout the city to obtain citizen input and to disseminate information about the plan and the planning process. The Mayor and City Council adopted the plan when it was completed.
Since the completion of the Flood and Stormwater Management Plan, 1990-2005, additional master drainage plans for Lower Mingo, Little Joe, South Tulsa, Bird, and Downtown have been completed. In addition, the original plans for Upper Mill, Upper Audubon, Upper Jones, Upper Tupelo, Upper Brookhollow, and Vensel Creeks, now over 15 years old, were updated. The City had also developed a planning process for acquiring repetitive-loss, floodway, and substantially damaged properties, and buildings recommended for acquisition and removal from the floodplain in the master drainage plans. Many of the projects proposed in the plan have been funded and completed.
2.4.4 Flood and Stormwater Management Plan (Update), 1999-2014 The Flood and Stormwater Management Plan, 1999-2014 reviewed the various stormwater-related plans in light of new floodplain management perspectives, and recommended areas for restudy and project reprioritization. The 1999 Update was based on the best available information, including the 29 basin studies and 56 creeks and watersheds within the jurisdiction of the City of Tulsa, along with the floodplain notification database, the Non-Structural Hazard Mitigation Plan, the 1997 Urban Infrastructure Inventory, and the Repetitive Loss Plan. The regulatory floodplains of the City of Tulsa are shown in Figure 2–2.
2.4.5 Community Rating System The City of Tulsa joined FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) on October 1, 1991. Tulsa has taken its participation in the CRS program very seriously and rapidly progressed to a rating of 5, and in 2000 was awarded a rating of 3, the highest rating awarded in the country. As a result of Tulsa’s Comprehensive Stormwater Management Program, its citizens enjoy the lowest flood insurance rates in the nation.
In 1997, when the City was updating its stormwater plan, the CRS program revised its planning process requirements, as described in Activity 510 - Floodplain Management Planning. Since Tulsa’s planning procedures were modeled on the CRS process, it was decided the new city-wide Flood and Stormwater Management Plan 1999-2014 would follow the CRS guidelines.
2–14
Acquisition and Relocation Over the past 15 years, Tulsa has cleared more than 900 buildings from its floodplains. The largest clearance came after the 1984 flood, when more than 300 single-family homes and 228 mobile homes pads were acquired and removed. The City's floodplain program is gradually reducing its inventory of thousands of flood-prone buildings, and has revised its post-flood mitigation plan to include acquisition and relocation recommendations for before, during, and after a flood. Tulsa’s Non-Structural Mitigation (Acquisition) list, included in Appendix H, identifies 455 flood-prone properties recommended for acquisition and removal from the floodplain as the most cost-effective means of protection. As funds and opportunities become available, the most vulnerable properties are given the opportunity to participate in Tulsa’s voluntary flood acquisition program.
The City of Tulsa, as of August 18, 2002, has two Hazard Mitigation Grant Program applications in process with the Oklahoma Department of Civil Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the acquisition and removal of 28 high-priority repetitive loss and repeatedly flooded properties.
Repetitive Loss Plan A repetitive loss property is defined by FEMA as “a property for which two or more National Flood Insurance Program losses of at least $1,000 each have been paid within any 10-year period.”
The City of Tulsa currently has 123 properties on its FEMA Repetitive Loss list. Tulsa has developed a Repetitive Loss Plan that recommends the measures needed to solve the flooding problem of each repetitive loss property. Tulsa’s strategies include:
· Construction of flood protection projects, such as channel improvements and stormwater detention ponds · Construction of small local projects, such as storm sewers, culvert replacements, and drainage ditches · Acquisition of the property and removal and demolition of the building
The locations of Tulsa’s repetitive loss properties are shown on the map in Figure 2–3 and are listed by status category in Appendix G.
Critical Facilities Critical Facilities located in the floodplains pose a problem for the community. In the event of a flood, they have impacts beyond the flooding of the facility. If flooded, Police and Fire stations cannot perform their first responder duties. During the 1984 flood, hundreds of police cars parked in the floodplain were flooded and unavailable for use in responding to Tulsa’s worst natural disaster. Critical facilities located in the floodplain are listed in Table 2–2 and shown on the map in Figure 2–4.
2–16
This page removed due to sensitive nature of information.
For more information, contact information can be located on page xviii. This page removed due to sensitive nature of information.
For more information, contact information can be located on page xviii. 2.4.6 City Stormwater Programs The City of Tulsa’s extensive stormwater management program is comprehensive in scale and includes every aspect of flood and stormwater management. This section provides a discussion of each program element.
Maintenance and Operations City leaders clearly saw the need for better maintenance when the 1984 flood swamped neglected pump stations, debris-choked creeks and channels, and clogged and collapsed sewers. The resulting public and private costs were enormous.
The flood triggered a search for stable, continual maintenance funding. The answer came in 1986, when city leaders approved a stormwater drainage utility fee. Now maintenance is an essential element of Tulsa's program. The contrast is telling:
· In 1980, the city spent about $400,000 on stormwater maintenance. · In 1993, the city was able to spend about $6 million on stormwater maintenance.
The difference was the stormwater drainage utility fee.
The maintenance program's first goal is to keep systems operating at full capacity. These systems include hundreds of miles of surface channels and floodplains, thousands of miles of underground sewers, public detention basins, pump stations, roadside ditches, bridges, and the curbs and inlets along the street system.
The list of duties continues to expand, extending through turf control and tree planting, debris removal, emergency response during storms, and management of maintenance trails along drainageways.
Response Emergency response is triggered by the possibility of severe weather anywhere in the community. Response teams are guided by detailed plans and protocols, training, and their extensive field experience from other emergencies. The plans also identify critical facilities with hazardous materials, vulnerable occupants, and essential community functions.
Recovery and Mitigation Traditionally, flood recovery has meant rebuilding as fast as possible. But recurring disasters have taught Tulsans that rebuilding in kind can mean investing in another disaster. Today, Tulsa emphasizes mitigation projects, which seek to make the response to each disaster reduce future losses. For example, hundreds of flooded homes have been relocated to dry sites. In addition, the city is updating its flood-hazard mitigation plans to include actions to be taken before, during, and after a flood.
2–20 Hazardous Materials Sites Hazardous materials sites, discussed in Chapter 3, section 3.12, also present special problems when located in the floodplain. When flooded, hazardous materials may react with water and become volatile, or contaminate areas and flooded buildings for miles downstream. Tulsa’s hazardous materials facilities located in the floodplain are listed in Table 2–3 and they are shown on the map in Figure 2–5.
Emergency Management Capricious climate makes Tulsa vulnerable to weather emergencies, particularly tornadoes, violent thunderstorms, and floods. As with flooding, Tulsa's emergency management goal is to reduce the hazard and damage before, during, and after the event.
Overall responsibility during emergencies lies with the City-County Tulsa Area Emergency Management Agency. For flood management, however, TAEMA shares the leadership role with Tulsa's Public Works Department.
Forecasting and Warning Flash floods require the earliest possible warnings. Tulsa's warning system works in cooperation with the National Weather Service, news media, and TAEMA. A computerized ALERT system includes 39 rain, 19 stream, and seven detention gauges that report changes as they happen. The system is based on detailed basin inventories and includes a hydrologic program that develops stream and flood forecasts, which are released for appropriate action before flooding occurs. Siren locations are shown in Chapter 1, Figure 1–5.
Public Awareness The City places great emphasis on public information and involvement to keep citizens aware that floods are frequent in Tulsa and require prudent preparation.
Informational tools include flood maps, brochures, news releases, fact sheets, reports, slide shows, videos, direct mailings, displays, speeches and presentations, roadway signs, and individual contacts—anything and everything available to help keep the public informed. For example, the City sends out periodic notices to floodplain occupants, warning them of hazards, offering them flood preparedness tips, and urging them to buy flood insurance. Also, Tulsa's stormwater ordinances require that full information about flood hazards be provided to prospective buyers by property sellers, and to tenants by landlords.
2–21 This page removed due to sensitive nature of information.
For more information, contact information can be located on page xviii. This page removed due to sensitive nature of information.
For more information, contact information can be located on page xviii. 2.5 Vulnerability
All buildings in the City of Tulsa, regardless of location, are at some risk of suffering riverine flooding or local surface water drainage damage.
FEMA has identified those areas within the community that have a one percent chance of flooding in any given year. These areas, commonly referred to as the 100-year floodplain, are designated as the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) on FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). The SFHA identifies the National Flood Insurance Program’s (NFIP) minimum national standard, and reflects existing development conditions at the time of the study.
The City of Tulsa’s Regulatory Floodplains are mapped to a higher standard than FEMA’s Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), and reflect the 100-year floodplain limits based upon total anticipated urbanization of the watershed, and allowing for no floodplain fill.
The City of Tulsa has a total of 12,483 properties that are touched by the floodplains that have buildings on them. The buildings on the properties are not necessarily located inside the floodplain. The number of buildings by type, fair market value of the improvements, estimated value of the contents, and total value are shown in Table 2-4.
Table 2–4: Floodplain Property Value
Number of Building Contents Total Type Buildings Value Value Value Single-Family 9,130 $697,890,741 $348,945,370 $1,046,836,111 Multi-Family 2,460 165,007,351 82,503,675 247,511,026 Mobile Home 16 1,931,407 965,703 2,897,110 Properties Commercial 312 72,337,635 72,337,635 144,675,270 Hotel/Motels 12 17,572,100 8,786,050 26,358,150 Offices 80 87,259,130 87,259,130 174,518,260 Industrial 441 124,940,273 187,410,409 312,350,682 Critical Facilities 32 99,310,213 100,435,029 199,745,242 Total 12,483 $1,266,248,850 $888,643,001 $2,154,891,851
Table 2–5 on the next page shows statistics about the vulnerability of Tulsa’s floodplain properties, including number, value, flood damage, flood insurance policies, and actual losses. There are 2,622 buildings located within the FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area, and another 6,068 buildings in the City of Tulsa’s Regulatory Floodplain, for a total of 8,690 buildings being physically located inside of Tulsa’s floodplains. Total value of improvements and contents of buildings located inside of the floodplains is estimated to be $1.494 billion. Damage to buildings and their contents, from the 100-year flood event, is estimated to be $316 million.
2–24 Table 2–5: Floodplain Building Vulnerability
Structures in the Floodplains Number or Value
FEMA SFHA 2,622 Tulsa Regulatory Floodplain 6,068 Total Floodplain Buildings 8,690 Value of Floodplain Buildings $877,690,000 Value of Contents $616,990,000
Total Value of Buildings Located in the $1,494,680,000 Floodplain Damage to Buildings from 100-Year Flood $131,653,000 Damage to Contents from 100-Year Flood $185,097,000 Total Damage from the 100-Year Flood $316,750,000
Flood Insurance - Jan 1, 1978 to Dec 31, 2001 (Source: FEMA) Policies in Force 2,303 $ Insurance in Force $289,606,000 Paid Premiums $898,326 Total Losses Paid 2,431 Loss Payments $37,422,249
Critical Facilities located in the floodplains, their type, number, value of improvements and contents, and total value are shown in Table 2-6.
Table 2–6: Critical Facilities in the Floodplain
Number of Building Contents Total Type Buildings Value Value Value Schools 8 $79,754,896 $79,754,896 $159,509,792 Daycare 16 1,648,032 824,016 2,472,048 Nursing Homes 1 623,000 311,500 934,500 Tulsa Zoo 1 11,033,620 11,033,620 22,067,240 YWCA 1 865,000 432,500 1,297,500 Fire Department 4 3,010,665 4,515,997 7,526,662 Medical Buildings 1 2,375,000 3,562,500 5,937,500 Total 32 $99,310,213 $100,435,029 $199,745,242
Overtopped bridges in the city are shown in Figure 2–6 and listed in Appendix J. The depth of flooding listed for each bridge in Appendix J is the potential depth of water above the road surface, based on the 100-year flood (the 1 percent flood).
2–25
2.6 Conclusion
Over the past twenty years, Tulsa has made great progress in protecting its citizens’ lives and property from flooding. In 1978, the City was cited as the nation’s most disaster- prone community. By 1990, Tulsa’s floodplain management program was receiving national awards, and in 2000, just 16 years after the devastating 1984 flood, the City was awarded the Community Rating System’s Class 3, the best in the nation, and affording Tulsa’s citizens the lowest flood insurance rates in the country.
Much work remains to be done to make Tulsa safe from flooding. Over 8,500 buildings remain in the city’s regulatory floodplains. An additional 3,200 buildings are subject to areas of shallow flooding along the Perryman Ditch and in the Arkansas River floodplain. Over 3,000 of these structures are located in the Parkview/Charles Page Boulevard drainage area, protected by levees along the Arkansas River.
To protect citizens at risk from flooding, Tulsa’s Flood and Stormwater Management Plan 1999-2014 (a summary of 29 individual basin-wide master drainage plans) and Capital Improvements Plan have identified over $500 million in needed stormwater projects. These include bridge replacements, channel improvements, and stormwater detention ponds, and acquisition and removal of several hundred flood-prone properties.
2–27
Chapter 3: Additional Hazards
Chapter 3: Additional Hazards
Introduction Natural weather-related events, such as floods, tornadoes, severe drought, extreme heat, high winds, wildfires, and lightning only become disasters when people and their developments are located in nature’s path. When there is human occupation in high-risk areas, many disaster-related losses can be predicted. These predictions can be used to create proactive measures for mitigating the impacts of natural hazard events, and significantly reducing or eliminating them.
Each natural hazard has its own characteristics, time of year and geographic area of probable occurrence, severity, and risk level. Although natural hazards may be individually identified and categorized, many are interrelated, and a natural hazard event may involve multiple hazards. For example, severe thunderstorms may spawn high winds, lightning, hailstorms, tornadoes, and flooding.
It is often difficult to identify individual hazards in multi-hazard events and attribute damages and costs. Attempts to do so will inevitably be sketchy and incomplete. However, risk assessment will grow in accuracy as new technology is developed and refined.
This chapter contains the risk identification and assessment of 14 additional hazards. The natural hazards addressed, for purposes of this study, are those deemed most likely to impact Northeastern Oklahoma. The hazards include:
1. Tornadoes 8. Expansive Soils 2. High Winds 9. Urban Fires 3. Lightning 10. Wildfires 4. Hail 11. Earthquakes 5. Severe Winter Storms 12. Hazardous Materials Events 6. Extreme Heat 13. Dam Failures 7. Drought 14. Levee Failures
As discussed earlier, the hazards addressed in this Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan were identified by researching local archives and libraries, newspapers and web databases, by interviewing local officials involved in emergency and disaster management, through a two-year screening process by Project Impact, and by input from Tulsa Hazard Mitigation Citizen Advisory Committee members.
3–1
Each hazard section includes the following information:
· Hazard Profile – Causes, effects, normal frequency (how often it is likely to occur at a particular location), and available measurement scales or methods of the severity of the events, if any; the geographical extent of the hazards; and the identification of any topographic or geological conditions that would make a particular area prone to a hazard. · Historical Events – Notable past occurrences of the hazard, including national, state, and local examples, if any. Where available, cost of damage, in terms of lives and property are included. · Vulnerable Population – The people, geographic locations, and types of property subject to the particular hazard are identified. For each hazard with a specific geographic location, such as floodplains, dam break path, levee failure, the number, types, value of building and contents, and vulnerable populations are identified. The planning team used data from the Tulsa County Assessor’s Office, INCOG, used GIS modeling, and FEMA methodology recommended in FEMA 386-2, to estimate the potential dollar losses from the hazards most likely to impact the Tulsa area. · Conclusion – The information provided on each of the hazards is condensed into a brief summary/conclusion statement.
3–2
3.1 Tornadoes
A tornado is a rapidly rotating vortex or funnel of air extending to the ground from a cumulonimbus cloud. When the lower tip of a vortex touches earth, the tornado becomes a force of destruction. The path width of a tornado is generally less than a half-mile, but the path length can vary from a few hundred yards to dozens of miles. A tornado moves at speeds from 30 to 125 mph, but can generate winds exceeding 300 mph.
3.1.1 Hazard Profile Severe thunderstorms produce about 1,000 tornadoes each year in the United States. FEMA reports that 106 federal disaster declarations over the past 20 years have included tornado damage.
Effects The path width of a tornado averages about 200 yards and therefore can have a substantial impact on human life and property. Damage from the
average tornado includes roof Each year Oklahoma has more tornado events per square mile surfaces, mobile homes pushed off than any other state of their foundations, and automobiles pushed off of the road. More severe tornadoes can lift 300-ton objects and toss homes more than 300 feet.
Normal Frequency Oklahoma, along with Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, and Kansas, is located in “Tornado Alley,” the most tornado-prone area of the nation. Oklahoma has experienced an average of 60 tornadoes per year over the past 50 years. Between 1975 and 1995 there were eight federal tornado-related disaster declarations in the state. Oklahoma is hit by more tornadoes each year, on average, than any other state except Texas. Texas has twice as many tornadoes, but is also more than twice the size of Oklahoma.
Tornadoes are most likely to occur between March 15 and June 15, and over half strike in the afternoon between the hours of 3:00 and 7:00 PM.
Tulsa County has been hit by 61 tornadoes in the last 52 years. This equates to a frequency of 1.17 per year. Tulsa can expect a tornado on the average of at least once each year. More recent data shows that Tulsa County had 11 reported tornadoes from 1995 to 2001, or about 1.6 per year. Figure 3–1 shows historic tornado paths from 1950 to 2000 in the Tulsa area, which demonstrates the random nature of tornado strikes.
3–3
Tulsa has been hit less frequently than other locations in “Tornado Alley.” According to a Native American legend, Tulsa is protected from “devil winds” by the mountains on the west side of the river, the direction from which most tornadoes approach.
Measurements Almost 70% of all tornadoes are measured F0 and F1 on the Fujita Tornado Scale (see below), causing light to moderate damage, with wind speeds between 40 and 112 miles per hour. F4 and F5 tornadoes are considerably less frequent, but are the big killers. Sixty-seven percent of all tornado deaths were caused by F4 and F5 storms, which represent only 1% of all tornadoes. Figure 3–1: Historical Tornado Paths in Tulsa County
Table 3–1: Fujita Scale
Category Wind Speed (mph) Damage
F0 Gale tornado (40-72) Light: Damage to chimneys, tree branches, shallow-root trees, sign boards
F1 Moderate tornado (73-112) Moderate: Lower limit is beginning of hurricane wind speed—surfaces peeled off roofs, mobile homes pushed off foundations or overturned, cars pushed off roads
F2 Significant tornado (113-157) Considerable: Roofs torn off frame houses, mobile homes demolished, boxcars pushed over, large trees snapped or uprooted, light-object missiles generated
F3 Severe tornado (158-206) Severe: Roofs and some walls torn off well-constructed houses, trains overturned, most trees in forest uprooted, cars lifted off the ground and thrown
F4 Devastating tornado (207-260) Devastating: Well-constructed houses leveled, structures with weak foundations blown off some distance, cars thrown and large missiles generated
F5 Incredible tornado (261-318) Incredible: Strong frame houses lifted off foundations and carried considerable distance to disintegrate, automobile-sized missiles fly through the air in excess of 100 yards, trees debarked
3.1.2 Historical Events In Oklahoma since 1950, there have been over 200 fatalities and over 2,000 injuries from tornadoes. According to the National Climatic Data Center, there were 45 tornado-related fatalities from 1995 to the year 2000, and 42 of those occurred in 1999 during the worst
3–4
tornado incident in recent Oklahoma history. (The Oklahoma Department of Civil Emergency Management states in their All-Hazards Mitigation Plan that there were 46 fatalities from tornadoes in 1999.)
This incident occurred on May 3 when a series of severe thunderstorms swept out of the southwest. These storms produced many tornadoes that greatly intensified as they moved across the state. The map to the right shows tornado touchdowns, paths, and direction of movement. The visual representation makes it clear that this incident was indeed a huge outbreak.
One of the tornadoes in the outbreak was an F5, which occurred southwest of Oklahoma City, stayed on the ground about four hours, and left a path approximately thirty- eight miles long. This storm was the first F5 tornado to ever hit metropolitan Oklahoma City. The path included 6.5 miles of continuous F4 damage as well as several areas of F5 level destruction. Several homes were completely removed from their slabs.
Approximately 10,000 homes and businesses were affected by the storms, with total losses exceeding The worst tornado in recent Oklahoma history hit Mulhall and $1 billion. In Oklahoma, at least Oklahoma City in May 1999, causing over $1 billion in damage 899 structures were destroyed, including 645 in Oklahoma City and 95 percent of the town of Mulhall. Federal disaster areas were declared in 16 Oklahoma counties.
The table below compares Tulsa County with Oklahoma for tornado frequency and impact data in two time periods, reported by the National Climatic Data Center.
Table 3–2: Tornadoes in Oklahoma and in Tulsa County Since 1950 and Since 1995
Oklahoma Events Deaths Injuries Property Damage
1950-2000 3525 305 4659 $3,958,447,000 1995-2000 534 45 751 $1,138,000,000 Tulsa County
1950-2000 61 8 227 $369,197,000 1995-2000 11 0 0 $2,226,000
3–5
3.1.3 Vulnerable Population The National Weather Service advises that tornadoes strike at random, and therefore all areas within the community are equally at risk. However, tornadoes follow the path of least resistance. People living in valleys, which normally are the most highly developed areas, have the greatest exposure.
Damage is a factor of both storm or wind severity and what is in the path of the tornado. An F4 tornado in a densely populated area will do enormous damage, as in the recent Oklahoma City area storm.
The characteristics of a structure can make it more or less vulnerable to tornado damage, and its occupants more or less safe from injury if the building is hit. For example, mobile homes can be more easily damaged than permanent structures, buildings with crawl spaces are more susceptible to lift, and foundation and roof type can increase or decrease the structure’s vulnerability. (A mobile home is defined by Florida’s Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles as a dwelling that is built on an integral chassis, in a factory, transportable in one or more sections, and eight feet or more in width.)
The table below shows the numbers of tornado-related fatalities in the United States for each year from 1995 to 2000, and where the deaths occurred. It illustrates that those who live in mobile homes are significantly more vulnerable to the effects of a tornado than any other identifiable population. While the number of mobile homes is a small fraction of total residential dwellings, more people who lived in mobile homes died from tornado strikes than did those who lived in permanent or conventional homes. In fact, nearly 44% of all tornado deaths during this time period occurred in mobile homes.
Table 3–3: Tornado Fatalities in the United States
Permanent Mobile In the Total for Year Vehicle Other Home Home Open Year
1995 4 15 8 0 3 30 1996 2 8 14 0 1 25 1997 3 38 15 0 11 67 1998 16 46 64 0 4 130 1999 6 39 36 0 13 94 2000 3 6 18 0 2 29 Totals 34 152 155 0 34 375
3–6
3.1.4 Tornado Scenario Tulsa County has experienced an average of 1.2 tornadoes per year over the last 50 years, from 1950 to 2000, and an average of 2.2 tornadoes per year during the 5 year period from 1995 to 2000, as shown on chart in Table 3–2.
The entire community, as illustrated on the map in Figure 3–1, is subject to random tornado events. A typical tornado path is, however, reported to be approximately 600 ft. in width, and 2.5 miles in length. The typical path, in Tulsa County, tends to be generally from southwest to northeast.
Oklahoma experiences, on the average, about 60 tornadoes per year. About 70% are F0 and F1 magnitude events. Only about 1% of tornadoes are killers of F4 and F5 strength, with wind speeds from 207-318 mph. The path of an average tornado is about 600 ft. in width by 2 ½ miles in length. The area of destruction is about 181 acres per event. About 16 square miles of Oklahoma’s 69,919 square miles are impacted by tornadoes each year. In Oklahoma, the chances of a tornado hitting any one area in any given year is about .0002, and for an F4 or F5, about .0000024. Bigger and more devastating tornadoes can and do occur, as evidenced by the 1999 Oklahoma City tornado, which stayed on the ground for 38 miles.
Typical Tulsa Tornado Scenario A hypothetical tornado path, based on the typical event discussed above, was randomly placed through the center of the community, touching down in the 41st and South Peoria Avenue area, with a path of destruction northeast to the 26th and South Harvard area.
The typical tornado as presented in this scenario affects 827 buildings, including Doctor’s Hospital, 765 single-family residences, 46 apartment units, and 15 commercial businesses. Total assets in the tornado path, including buildings and contents totals $163 million. The path of the hypothetical tornado is shown on the map in Figure 3–2. The damage, by building type, contents, and percent damage to each building is summarized in Table 3–4.
The typical tornado, according to this hypothetical scenario, could destroy 191 residences, 11 apartment units, and 4 businesses, and damage an additional 574 residences, 35 apartment units, 11 businesses, and a hospital. Damage to buildings would approximate $56 million, and $29 million to contents, for a total damage estimate of $85 million.
3–7
Table 3–4: Tornado Scenario
Total Buildings In Tornado Scenario Path Building Contents Type Number Total Value Value Value Single-Family 765 $99,970,000 $49,985,000 $149,955,000 Multi-Family 46 793,260 396,360 1,189,620 Commercial 15 6,392,000 6,392,000 12,784,000 Hospital 1 Total 827 $107,155,260 $56,773,360 $163,928,620
Destroyed Building Contents Total Type Number Damage Damage Damage Single-Family 191 $24,992,500 $12,496,250 $37,488,750 Multi-Family 11 198,315 99,157 297,472 Commercial 4 1,598,000 1,598,000 3,196,000 Total 206 $26,788,815 $14,193,407 $40,982,222
50% Damage Single-Family 267 $17,494,750 $8,747,375 $26,242,125 Multi-Family 16 138,820 69,410 208,230 Commercial 5 1,118,600 1,118,600 2,237,200 Hospital 1 Total 289 $18,752,170 $9,935,385 $28,687,555
25% Damage Single-Family 307 $9,997,000 $4,998,500 $14,995,500 Multi-Family 19 79,326 39,663 118,989 Commercial 6 639,200 639,200 1,278,400 Total 332 $10,715,526 $5,677,363 $16,392,889
Total Damages, Tornado Scenario Single-Family 765 $52,484,250 $26,242,125 $78,726,375 Multi-Family 46 416,461 208,230 624,691 Commercial 15 3,355,800 3,355,800 6,711,600 Hospital 1 Total 827 $56,256,511 $29,806,155 $86,062,666
3–9
3.1.5 Conclusion Depending on the severity of the tornado, damage can range from light damage to trees and roofs (Fujita Category F0) to destruction of well-built houses (Fujita Category F4 and F5). Mobile homes and houses with crawl spaces are more susceptible to lift and therefore at the greatest risk of damage.
Oklahoma is located in “Tornado Alley,” the most tornado-prone area of the United States. In the last 50 years, there have been over 300 fatalities and over 4,600 injuries from tornadoes.
While Tulsa has not been hit by the most violent storms, F3 tornadoes have killed 7 people and injured 201 since 1950.
3.1.6 Sources Bohr, Gregory S. Oklahoma Tornado Outbreak, p. 1-2. Southern Regional Climate Center at Louisiana State University, May 1999.
Hazard Event Type Classifications, at Web address: lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/extremes.html. National Climatic Data Center.
Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, p. 38–46. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1997.
Situation Report #1, October 11, 2001, at Web address: www.onenet.net/~odcem/archives/state/1001/1009weather/1011sitreport.htm. Oklahoma Department of Civil Emergency Management, 2001.
Talking About Disaster: Guide for Standard Messages, p. 109. National Disaster Education Coalition, Washington, D.C., 1999.
The Central Oklahoma Tornado Outbreak of May 3, 1999, at Web address: www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/storms/19990503/intro.html. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Tornado Project Online, at Web address: www.tornadoproject.com/front.htm. The Tornado Project, PO Box 302, St. Johnsbury, Vermont 05819.
3–10
3.2 High Winds
Wind is defined as the motion of air relative to the earth’s surface. Extreme windstorm events are associated with cyclones, severe thunderstorms, and accompanying phenomena such as tornadoes and downbursts. Winds vary from zero at ground level to 200 mph in the upper atmospheric jet steam, 6 to 8 miles above the earth.
The mean annual wind speed in the mainland United States is reported by FEMA to be 8 to 12 mph, with frequent speeds of 50 mph and occasional wind speeds of greater than 70 mph. Tropical cyclone winds along coastal areas from Texas to Maine may exceed 100 mph.
3.2.1 Hazard Profile The entire United States is at risk from damaging winds. Winds are always part of severe storms such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and blizzards but do not have to accompany a storm to be dangerous. Down-slope windstorms, straight-line winds, and microbursts can all cause death, injury, and property and crop damage.
Property damage and loss of life from windstorms are
increasing due to a variety of High winds generated by Oklahoma’s huge spring and autumn factors. Use of manufactured storms can be devastating to older homes and trailers housing is on an upward trend, and this type of structure provides less resistance to wind than conventional construction. All states do not have uniform building codes for wind-resistant construction. Inferior construction practices result in buildings particularly susceptible to high winds.
Effects The deteriorating condition of older homes and the increased use of aluminum-clad mobile homes will likely cause the impacts of wind hazards to increase. The general design and construction of buildings in many high wind zones do not fully consider wind resistance and its importance to survival. Near-surface winds and associated pressure effects exert pressure on structure walls, doors, windows, and roofs, causing the structural components to fail.
3–11
Debris carried by extreme winds can directly contribute to loss of life and indirectly to the failure of protective building envelope components. (The building envelope consists of the walls, foundation, doors, windows, and roof—all surfaces that make up the barrier between the indoors and the outdoors.) Upon impact, wind-driven debris can rupture a building.
Measurements Various wind scales and resultant damages include the Beaufort, Saffir-Simpson, and the Fujita measurement scales. The tables below containing the Beaufort and Saffir-Simpson scales show that there is little consensus as to what wind speeds produce various damages. (The Fujita Scale is shown in the section, “Tornadoes.”)
Table 3–5: Beaufort Scale of Wind Strength
Wind Speed Force Damages (mph)
9 47-54 Strong gale: Chimneys blown down, slate and tiles torn from roofs 10 55-63 Whole gale: Trees broken or uprooted 11 64-75 Storm: Trees Uprooted, cars overturned 12 75+ Severe Storm: Devastation is widespread, buildings destroyed
Table 3–6: Saffir-Simpson Scale
Wind Storm Category Speed Damages Surge (feet) (mph)
Minimal: Trees, shrubbery, unanchored mobile 1 74-95 4-5 homes, and some signs damaged, no real damage to structures Moderate: Some trees toppled, some roof 2 96-110 6-8 coverings damaged, major damage to mobile homes Extensive: Large trees are toppled, some structural damage to roofs, mobile homes 111-130 9-12 3 destroyed, structural damage to small homes and utility buildings Extreme: Extensive damage to roofs, windows, 4 131-155 13-18 and doors, roof systems on small buildings completely fail, some curtain walls fall Catastrophic: Roof damage is considerable and widespread, window and door damage is 155+ 18+ 5 severe, extensive glass failure, entire buildings could fall
3–12
3.2.2 Historical Events Over the past 20 years, 193 Federal disaster declarations have involved wind-induced damage. From 1975 to 1994 in the United States, there were a total of 649 deaths and 6,670 injuries from disastrous winds. Wind is the fourth-leading cause of property damage.
In that 20-year period, deaths from winds in the United States were highest in 1975 with 103 deaths, 31 of them occurring on November 10 in Michigan. The second highest number was in 1983 with 98 deaths. There was also the highest number of wind-related injuries in 1983, totaling 622.
From 1981 to 1990, the insurance industry spent nearly $23 billion on wind-related catastrophic events. Out of the primary sources of high winds (hurricanes, tropical storms, severe thunderstorms, and winter storms), severe local windstorms accounted for 51.3% of the expenditures.
Table 3–7: Fatalities and Property Damage Caused by High Winds From 1995 to 2000
Location Events Deaths Damage
Tulsa County 147 No data $415,000
Tulsa 58 0 $270,000
Oklahoma 2 $112,009,000
United States 193 $3,351,800,000
3.2.3 Vulnerable Population The highest wind speeds other than tornadoes occur in coastal regions, because of hurricane-related windstorms. However, the Midwest is also at risk from high winds because of the powerful thunderstorms that frequent the region.
The people most vulnerable to high wind-related deaths, injuries, and property damage are those residing in mobile homes and deteriorating or poorly constructed homes. Refer to Figure 1–4: Mobile Home Park Locations, in Chapter 1.
3.2.4 Conclusion Almost the entire United States has some risk of high wind events, but the factors that contribute most to wind-related deaths, injuries, and property damage are the structure type, quality of construction, and the state of deterioration of the buildings where people reside. Mobile homes, older homes, and poorly designed and constructed buildings are the most vulnerable.
Uniform building codes for wind-resistant construction and demand for better quality construction practices would result in buildings being less susceptible to high winds.
3–13
3.2.5 Sources Mileti, Dennis S. Disasters By Design, p. 85. J. Henry Press, Washington, D.C., 1999.
Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, p. 50–55. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1997.
National Climatic Data Center: World’s Largest Archive of Weather Data, at Web address: http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html. National Climatic Data Center.
Wind and the Built Environment: U.S. Needs in Wind Engineering and Hazard Mitigation. National Research Council, 1993.
3–14
3.3 Lightning
Lightning is generated by the buildup of charged ions in a thundercloud. When that buildup interacts with the best conducting object or surface on the ground, the result is a discharge of a lightning bolt. Thunder is the sound of the shock wave produced by the rapid heating and cooling of the air near the lightning bolt. The air in the channel of a lightning strike reaches temperatures higher than 50,000 degrees Fahrenheit.
3.3.1 Hazard Profile Lightning is deadlier than tornadoes and hurricanes combined. Only the combined weather casualty totals from flash floods and river floods exceed fatalities caused by lightning strikes. Lightning is the most constant and widespread threat to people and property during the thunderstorm season. Lightning-caused casualty and damage events are less variable from year to Lightning is one of the deadliest natural hazards, and can strike 10 year than other weather miles out in front of an advancing rain column causes.
Lightning can strike ten miles out from the rain column, and lightning deaths often occur under a clear sky ahead of the storm. This is because people wait until the last minute to seek shelter—hoping to finish the game, the painting, the lawn mowing, and so on.
Effects When lightning strikes a human being, serious burns or death are the common outcomes. Of the people struck by lightning, 20% die from their injures. For those who survive, their injuries can lead to permanent disabilities. 70% of the survivors suffer serious, long- term effects, including memory loss, attention deficits, sleep disorders, depression, irritability, fatigue, weakness, numbness, dizziness, stiffness in joints, muscle spasms, and an inability to sit for long periods.
Lightning strikes can also cause high-voltage power surges that can seriously damage equipment and valuable data if electronic surge protection devices are not installed on computer systems. Property damage from power surges and resulting fires can destroy not only the electronics in private homes, but also unprotected telecommunications equipment, wireless systems, and radio base stations.
3–15
Frequency National Geographic reports that lightning strikes the surface of the earth about 100 times every second. The U.S. National Lightning Detection Network estimates that one death occurs in every 86,000 flashes in the United States. Each year in this country, about 400 children and adults are struck by lightning during outdoor activities and an average of 73 people are killed.
The months most notorious for lightning incidents are June, with 21% of the strikes, July with 30%, and August with 22%. Sunday, Wednesday, and Saturday are the days that the most injurious lightning strikes occur, and between the hours of 12:00 noon and 6:00 PM.
3.3.2 Historical Events According to the National Lightning Safety Institute, which has studied 35 years of reports on lightning fatalities, injuries, and damage in the United States, the most common locations of injurious lightning strikes are as shown in the following table.
Table 3–8: Locations of Injurious Lightning Strikes
Location Percentage
Not reported 40 Open fields and recreation areas (not golf courses) 27 Under trees (not golf courses) 14 Water related (boating, fishing, swimming) 8 Golfing and on a golf course under trees 5 Heavy equipment and machinery related 3 Telephone related 2.4 Radio, transmitter and antenna related 0.6
From 1959 to 1995 in the United States, there were 3,239 deaths, 9,818 injuries, and 19,814 reports of property damage attributed to lightning strikes. Among the most severe were lightning strikes resulting in forest fires and damage to manufacturing plants and agricultural facilities.
According to NOAA, Oklahoma ranked 15th among states in the total number of casualties from lightning strikes during the 36-year period of their study, with 88 deaths and 243 injuries reported. It ranked 5th nationally in the number of damage reports, with 826.
3–16
Table 3–9: History of Lightning Events, Fatalities, and Damages from 1995 to 2000
Number of Number of Amount of Location Events Deaths Damage Tulsa County 113 0 $3,658,000 Tulsa 4 0 $210,000 State of Oklahoma 258 7 $13,150,000 United States 320 $216,100,000
From 1995 through 2000, Tulsa reported four lightning events that resulted in no fatalities or injuries, but caused $210,000 in property damage.
3.3.3 Vulnerable Population Anyone out-of-doors during a thunderstorm is exposed and at risk of injury from lightning. More people are killed by lightning strikes while participating in some form of recreation than any other activity. The next largest group of fatalities involved people under trees, and those near or in bodies of water. Other common lightning incidents involved golfers, agricultural activity, telephone users, and people in proximity to radios and antennas.
The most lightning deaths occur in Florida, Michigan, Texas, New York, and Tennessee. The most lightning injuries occur in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and New York.
Oklahoma is vulnerable to frequent thunderstorms and convective weather patterns, and therefore injury or damage from lightning is a constant and widespread risk during the thunderstorm season.
3.3.4 Conclusion Lightning is deadlier than tornadoes and hurricanes combined, occurring with more consistency every year during the thunderstorm season than any other natural hazard. People outside can have a false sense of security, thinking they are still safe because a storm front has not yet reached their location. In fact, lightning can strike ten miles out from the rain column, putting people that are still in clear weather at risk.
Lightning strikes occur most frequently during the summer months between 12:00 noon and 6:00 PM. However, the general rule of safety is that anyone outside during a thunderstorm should take cover.
Electronic equipment, from personal computers to enterprise-level communications systems, can also be seriously damaged by power surges from lightning. Surge protection should be included in any electronic system, and the absence of such should be considered a risk.
3–17
3.3.5 Sources Lightning Fatalities, Injuries, and Damage Reports in The United States From 1959- 1994. NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS SR-19, 1997.
Mulkins, Phil. “If you can hear thunder—find cover now!” Tulsa World, May 23, 2002.
Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, p. 30. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1977.
3–18
3.4 Hailstorms
A hailstorm is an outgrowth of a severe thunderstorm in which balls or irregularly shaped lumps of ice fall with rain. Extreme temperature differences from the ground upward into the jet stream produce strong updraft winds that cause hail formation.
The size of hailstones is a direct function of the severity and size of the storm. High velocity updraft winds keep hail in suspension in thunderclouds. The greater the intensity of heating at the Earth’s surface, the stronger the updraft will be. Higher temperatures relative to elevation result in increased suspension time, allowing hailstones to grow in size.
3.4.1 Hazard Profile Hail can occur in any strong thunderstorm, which means hail is a threat everywhere. Hail is one of the most destructive hazards to agricultural crops and animals, and the major natural cause of automobile damage.
Effects When hail hits, it can damage cars, shred roof Hailstones can cause widespread damage to crops and automobiles, coverings, and lead to water and also serious bodily injury damaged ceilings, walls, floors, appliances, and personal possessions. Large hailstones can also cause serious bodily injury.
Normal Frequency The middle area of the Great Plains is most frequently affected by hailstorms. Multiple impacts of concurrent severe thunderstorm effects (extreme winds, tornadoes, and hail) are very likely in this region. Outside of the coastal regions, most of the United States experiences hailstorms at least two or more days each year. A localized area along the border of Colorado and Wyoming experiences hailstorms eight or more days each year.
About 2% of United States crop production is damaged by hail each year, and in the Great Plains States it has sometimes reached 20%. Hail from thunderstorms causes nearly $1 billion in property and crop damage each year.
3–19
3.4.2 Historical Events The Midwest hailstorm and tornado event in April 1994 lasted four days. According to Property Claims Services in Rahway, New Jersey, it produced 300,000 damage claims against insurers, more than Hurricane Andrew or the Northridge earthquake.
According to NOAA, the most expensive thunderstorm event in United States history occurred in April-May of 1995 in the Texas-Oklahoma region. Hailstones up to four inches in diameter caused 109 hailstone-related injuries and contributed to over $2 billion in damage in Fort Worth, Texas, alone.
Between 1959 and 1992, Oklahoma reported 1,152 hailstorm events. These storms resulted in six injuries, $32 million in property damage, and $250,000 crop damage. If these seem to be conservative figures for a span of 43 years, keep in mind that these amounts only reflect damages that were reported. There were likely many events that were not reported.
As shown in the table below, Oklahoma has experienced 2,364 hailstorm incidents with hail of at least 1” in diameter in the five-year period from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 2000. This is an average of 473 hailstorms each year, or about 1.3 per day. Damage to buildings and crops totaled $17 million.
Table 3–10: Fatalities and Reported Damages Caused by Hail From 1995 to 2000
Number of Number of Amount of Location Events Deaths Damage
Tulsa County 113 0 $3,658,000 Tulsa 33 0 $3,505,000 Oklahoma 2364 0 $16,789,000 United States Not figured 4 $4,498,300,000
3.4.3 Vulnerable Population Hailstorms occur in every state on the mainland United States, but most frequently in the middle area of the Great Plains during the late spring and early summer when the jet stream migrates northward.
The peak periods for hailstorms, late spring and early summer, coincide with the Midwest’s most critical agricultural seasons for wheat, corn, barley, oats and rye, tobacco and fruit trees. Long-stemmed vegetation is especially vulnerable to damage by hail impacts and winds. Severe hailstorms also cause considerable damage to buildings and automobiles, but rarely result in loss of life.
Oklahoma has significant exposure to hailstorms, and virtually all buildings and crops in the state are at risk.
3–20
3.4.4 Conclusion Hailstorms can occur anywhere in the mainland United States where there are large thunderstorms. The states in the middle of the Great Plains are the most likely to have severe thunderstorms and therefore have the most hail events. The peak season for hail events is in the late spring and early summer.
In Oklahoma, there is significant exposure to hailstorms. There are an average of 473 hailstorms each year (or an average of 1.3 per day) with hailstones at least 1” in diameter. All buildings and crops are at risk.
3.4.5 Sources Institute for Business and Home Safety, at Web address: www.ibhs.org. Institute for Business and Home Safety, Tampa Florida, August 1999.
Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, p. 56–60. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1997.
NCDC Storm Event Database, at Web address: www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi- win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms. National Climatic Data Center.
3–21
3.5 Winter Storms
A severe winter storm is one that drops four or more inches of snow during a 12-hour period, or six or more inches during a 24-hour period. An ice storm occurs when freezing rain falls from clouds and freezes immediately upon contact.
The National Weather Service (NWS) issues winter storm advisories when at least five inches of snow or any amount of ice is projected to occur over a 24-hour period. A winter storm warning means forecasters expect at least seven inches of snow or half an inch of ice.
3.5.1 Hazard Profile A winter storm can range from moderate snow over a few hours to blizzard conditions with blinding, wind-driven snow lasting several days. Many winter depressions give rise to exceptionally heavy rain and widespread flooding. Conditions worsen if the precipitation falls in the form of snow, because it occupies seven to ten times more space than the same quantity of rain. The aftermath of a Tulsa is vulnerable to ice storms produced by warm, moist Gulf air winter storm can impact a colliding with arctic air from the Canadian Shield community or region for weeks, and even months.
Effects Winter storms bring the following hazards:
· Extreme cold, causing wind chill factors dangerous to humans and animals · Snow accumulation, causing blocked transportation routes and possible residual flooding · Reduced visibility and slick surfaces, causing hazardous driving and walking conditions · Power lines and tree limbs coated with heavy ice, causing power and telephone service disruptions
Winter storms cause great inconvenience, injuries and deaths. Everyone is affected by the loss of mobility. Streets and highways are slick and hazardous, and even walking from house to car can be dangerous. Public transportation is often blocked, and commuters or travelers can easily become stranded and families separated. People are often
3–22
inconvenienced or at risk of physical harm from loss of power to their homes. Above- ground electrical and telephone lines and tree limbs are often coated with a heavy build- up of accumulating ice, and can break when stressed by sufficient weight. Falling trees also often down power lines. When electrical lines are damaged, other utilities such as natural gas, water and sewer systems can become inoperable.
Physical damage to homes and facilities can occur from high winds, snow and ice accumulation, and hail. Even small accumulations of snow can wreak havoc on transportation systems, if there is a lack of snow clearing equipment and drivers on the roads are inexperienced.
Winter storms are often deceptive killers, because most deaths are indirectly related to the storm. The cold temperatures that accompany winter storms cause their own secondary hazards. House fires occur more frequently in winter due to lack of proper safety precautions when using alternate heating sources (unattended fires, disposal of hot ashes, improperly placed space heaters, and so on). Fires during winter storms also present a greater danger because water supplies may freeze and impede firefighting efforts.
Normal Frequency Using Oklahoma winter storm data from 1995 to 2000, the state averages 18 winter storm events each year. Low temperatures below freezing occur an average of 140 days per year in the western panhandle, and 60 days a year in the Red River plain in extreme southeastern Oklahoma. Days with high temperatures below freezing range from an average of 15 days per year in portions of north central and northwest Oklahoma to 3 days per year in the southeast.
3.5.2 Historical Events Between 1988 and 1991, a total of 372 deaths in the United States, an average of 93 each year, were attributed to severe winter storms. The super storm of March 1993, considered among the worst non-tropical weather events in American history, killed at least 79 people, injured more than 600, and caused $2 billion in property damage across portions of 20 states and the District of Columbia.
In Oklahoma, 114 winter storm events with snow, ice, sleet, freezing rain and drizzle were reported during the 8-year period from January 1993 to July 2001. These resulted in two deaths, more than $86 million of property damage, and $7 million of crop damage.
Recently, Oklahoma was hit by two major severe winter storms that resulted in National Disaster Declarations. On Christmas Day, 2000, Oklahoma suffered the most costly winter storm in its history. As of December 2001, $122.26 million in disaster aid had been sent to Oklahomans to help them recover from this storm.
Another severe winter storm—this one an ice storm—struck Oklahoma on January 30, 2002. Ice laden limbs of trees fell on power lines, knocking out electricity to approximately 250,000 people. Four persons died. The Governor declared 44 counties a Disaster Area.
3–23
Table 3–11: History of Severe Winter Storms, Fatalities, and Damages from 1995 to 2000
Number of Number of Number of Amount of Region Events Injuries Deaths Damage
Tulsa County 14 0 0 $21,000
State of Oklahoma 90 0 2 $92,870,000
United States 2,574 343 $2,725,800,000
3.5.3 Vulnerable Population The leading cause of death during winter storms is from automobile or other transportation accidents. Exhaustion and heart attacks caused by overexertion are also common causes of winter storm-related deaths. Indigent and elderly people account for the largest percentage of hypothermia victims.
Almost the entire United States is at some risk from winter storms, with the level or risk depending on the severity of the weather and vulnerability of local development. Every area that has streets, trees, or power lines is at risk from winter storms.
Oklahoma is particularly vulnerable to severe winter storms due to its proximity to the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf can supply strong, warm, and wet air masses that move northward across Texas and Oklahoma to collide with the cold air of the southward- dipping jet stream. This mixture can, and often does, produce a deadly combination of heavy rain, ice storms, snowfall, hail, high winds, and frigid temperatures worsened by damp air. Ice storms occur when rain falls out of a warm, moist upper layer of the atmosphere into a dry layer with freezing or sub-freezing air near the ground. Rain freezes on contact with the cold ground and accumulates on exposed surfaces.
Most of those who died in Oklahoma were located outdoors.
3.5.4 Conclusion Severe local storms are probably the most common widespread hazard. In latitudes like Oklahoma’s, where moist Gulf air collides with artic temperatures from the Canadian Shield, winter storms—particularly ice storms—have the potential to cause significant loss of life, property damage, transportation problems, and utility service failure over a large area.
Secondary effects of winter storms include house fires from increased and improper use of alternate heating sources. Frozen water supplies can impede firefighting efforts.
3–24
3.5.5 Sources FEMA Fact Sheet: Winter Storms, p. 30. Federal Emergency Management Agency, March 1999.
Information on Federally Declared Disasters, “Ice Storm Disaster Aid Reaches $122 Million,” at Web address: www.fema.gov./diz01/d1355n23.htm. Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Information on Federally Declared Disasters, “President Orders Disaster Aid for Oklahoma Ice Storm Victims,” at Web address: http://www.fema.gov/diz01/d1355n01.htm. Federal Emergency Management Agency.
King County Office of Emergency Management, “Severe Local Storms,” at Web address: www.metrokc.gov/prepare/hiva/storm.htm. Office of Emergency Management, King County, Washington.
Marler, J.W. “About 250,000 in State Still Without Electricity,” Tulsa World, February 1, 2002.
Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, p. 76–81. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1997.
Myers, Jim. “FEMA head adds counties to aid list,” Tulsa World, February 8, 2002.
NCDC Storm Event Database, at Web address: www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi- win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms. National Climatic Data Center.
Oklahoma Strategic All-Hazards Mitigation Plan, “Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment,” p 5. Oklahoma Department of Civil Emergency Management, September 2001.
Wack, Kevin. “Prepare for Deep Powder,” Tulsa World, February 3, 2002.
3–25
3.6 Extreme Heat
Extreme summer weather is characterized by a combination of very high temperatures and exceptionally humid conditions. A heat wave occurs when such conditions persist over time.
3.6.1 Hazard Profile Approximately 200 people die each year in the United States because of extreme heat. Extreme summer temperatures are also hazardous to livestock and crops, and can cause water shortages, exacerbate fire hazards, and prompt excessive demands for energy. Even roads, bridges, and railroad tracks are susceptible to damage from extreme heat. Over the last 10 years Tulsa’s average temperature in July and August has been 94 degrees Fahrenheit Effects Human bodies dissipate heat by varying the rate and depth of blood circulation and by losing water through the skin and sweat glands. Perspiration is about 90% of the body's heat dissipating function. Sweating, by itself, does nothing to cool the body unless the water is removed by evaporation. Since high relative humidity retards evaporation, under conditions of high temperature (above 90 degrees) and high relative humidity, the body is hard pressed to maintain 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit inside.
When heat gain exceeds the level the body can remove, or when the body cannot compensate for fluids and salt lost through perspiration, the temperature of the body's inner core begins to rise and heat-related illness may develop.
Another extreme heat hazard is air pollution. During the summer months, consistent high temperatures and stagnant airflow patterns cause a build-up of hydrocarbons to form a dome-like ceiling over large cities. The abundance of factories, automobiles, lawn equipment, and other internal combustion machines emit high particulate matter that builds and worsens with the increase in temperature. The resulting stagnant, dirty, and toxic air does not move away until a weather front arrives to disperse it.
When the particulate matter reaches a pre-determined level, cities issue ozone alerts and implement measures to reduce the use of cars and the output of the offending chemicals. Ozone alerts usually include advisories for the elderly and those with breathing difficulties to stay indoors in air-conditioned environments.
Damage to property during extreme heat is largely related to expanding and contracting soil and is covered in the section, “Expansive Soils.”
3–26
Normal Frequency Over the past ten years, the average high temperature for July and August in the Tulsa area has been 94 degrees, which puts the area in the “Extreme Caution” category on the National Weather Service (NWS) Heat Index scale, without factoring in relative humidity.
Measurements The Heat Index and Heat Disorders table (see below) relates index ranges with specific disorders, particularly for people in the higher risk groups. The heat index illustrates how the human body experiences the combined effects of high temperature and humidity. It more accurately reflects what the body experiences than simply measuring the air temperature. For example, when the air temperature is 98° Fahrenheit and the relative humidity is 50%, the human body experiences the discomfort and stress equivalent to 113° Fahrenheit.
With 94 degrees F and 80 percent humidity, the body experiences the equivalent of 129 degrees F, and is in extreme danger of heat stroke or sunstroke
3.6.2 Historical Events In the 40-year period from 1936 through 1975, nearly 20,000 people were killed in the United States by the effects of heat and solar radiation. In the disastrous heat wave of 1980, more than 1,250 people died.
A 1988 drought and heat wave in the central and eastern United States caused approximately $40 billion in livestock and crop damage. Another in the southeastern United States in 1993 caused approximately $1 billion in livestock and crop damage and an undetermined number of deaths.
3–27
The Central Plains and Corn Belt States experienced a heat wave July 15 through 19, 1995, when temperatures climbed above 120 degrees Fahrenheit. A significant portion of the Eastern States was in the danger category during the same period, with temperatures ranging from 105 to 120 degrees Fahrenheit. This heat wave caused 670 deaths.
In Oklahoma, July is generally the hottest month of the year, closely followed by August. The NWS compiled a 106-year record of monthly and annual average temperatures in Oklahoma, and the years of 1921, 1931, and 1936 show the highest average temperatures across a 12-month period for the past 100 years.
The table below shows that 44 deaths resulted from 43 extreme heat episodes from 1995 to 2000 in Oklahoma compared with 1,971 deaths in the United States. The table also illustrates the percentage of fatalities that were people over 65 years of age.
Table 3–12: Deaths from Extreme Heat
United Year Oklahoma Over 65 States
1995 0 1,021 73% 1996 7 36 84% 1997 0 81 65% 1998 24 173 68% 1999 10 502 67% 2000 3 158 68% Totals 44 1,971
Humidity has worsened over the past 40 years in northeast Oklahoma due in part to the construction of new lakes. If humidity readings are factored in to the air temperature records, the Heat Index for this area in July and August could easily move into the “Dangerous” or even “Extremely Dangerous” levels in those two months. Therefore, this part of the state is quite vulnerable to the natural hazard of extreme heat during a large part of virtually every summer season.
Tulsa has experienced 90 ozone alert declarations in the past 10 years, and 50 in the last five years. The number of days when the air quality is so poor that alerts must be issued is increasing more rapidly in recent years. Surrounding communities may naturally be affected by the state of Tulsa’s air quality.
Over the last 50 years Tulsa County has reported 16 events classified as Record Warmth, Excessive Heat or Record Heat by the National Climatic Data Center. These incidents are considered responsible for seven deaths, all but one of which occurred since 1995, and one extreme heat related incident occurred in 2001.
3.6.3 Vulnerable Population Every person is subject to health problems during a heat wave. However, the poor, elderly, obese, and those with weakened hearts are more likely to suffer. The elderly and
3–28
obese have a higher rate of pulmonary disease and therefore are adversely affected by poor air quality. Furthermore, the poor and elderly may be less able to afford high utility bills and air conditioning units. Another segment of the population at risk are those whose jobs consist of strenuous labor outside exposed to high temperatures and humidity.
Studies indicate that, other things being equal, the severity of heat disorders tend to increase with age. Heat cramps in a 17-year-old may become heat exhaustion in a person who is 40 and heat stroke in a person over 60. Sweating is the body’s natural mechanism for reducing high body temperature, and the body temperature at which sweating begins increases with age.
More deaths from extreme summer weather occur in urban centers than in rural areas. Poorer air quality in big cities exacerbates severe conditions. The masses of stone, brick, concrete, and asphalt that are typical of urban architecture absorb radiant heat energy during the day and radiate that heat during nights that would otherwise be cooler. Tall buildings may effectively decrease wind velocity, thereby decreasing the contribution of moving air to evaporative and convective cooling.
Out of Tulsa County’s population of approximately 506,000 people, 58,404 (or 11.6%) are over 64, and 26,021 (or 7.8%) of the households are considered low income.
3.6.4 Conclusion Oklahoma can expect to be hit by the hazard of extreme heat every summer. The severity of the hazard is dependent on a combination of temperature, humidity, and access to air conditioning. The most vulnerable groups are:
· The poor (See Figure 1–3: Low Income Areas, in Chapter 1) · The elderly (See Figure 1–2: Population 65 Years and Older, in Chapter 1) · Those with heart problems · The obese · Those who work outside
Everyone in Tulsa County is exposed, but the most vulnerable are the 11.6% of the population that is over 64 and the 7.8% of the population that is low income.
3.6.5 Sources Darling, Allan. NWS Internet Weather Source, “Heat Wave,” at Web address: http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/hwave.html. NWS Office of Systems Operations, 2000.
Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, p. 84–88. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1997.
3–29
3.7 Drought
Drought can be defined as “climatic dryness severe enough to reduce soil moisture and water below the minimum necessary for sustaining plant, animal, and human life systems.” Drought is caused by a deficiency of precipitation, which can be aggravated by high temperatures, high winds, and low relative humidity. Duration and severity are usually measured by deviation from norms of annual precipitation and stream flows.
3.7.1 Hazard Profile Drought is an insidious hazard of nature, often characterized as a “creeping phenomenon,” since it is usually difficult to recognize the occurrence of drought before being in the middle of one. Drought analysis is more subjective than that for floods, because droughts do not occur spontaneously. They evolve over time as certain conditions are met and are spread over a large geographical area. Drought severity depends on its duration, intensity, geographic extent, and the The “Dust Bowl” of the 1930s, the greatest natural disaster in Oklahoma history, drove over 800,000 people off the land regional water supply demands made by human activities and vegetation. This multi-dimensional nature makes it difficult to define a drought and to perform comprehensive risk assessments. This leads to the lack of accurate, reliable, and timely estimates of drought severity and effects, and ultimately slows the development of drought contingency plans.
Effects Adverse consequences of drought occur because of deficiencies in the following:
· Public and rural water supplies for human and livestock consumption · Natural soil water or irrigation water for agriculture · Water for hydroelectric power, forests, recreation, and navigation · Water quality
The most direct impact of drought is economic rather than loss of life or immediate destruction of property. Drought affects water levels for use by industry, agriculture, and individual consumers.
3–30
Water shortages affect fire fighting capabilities through reduced water flows and pressures. Drought also affects power production, because low water levels force electric companies to curtail hydro generation and buy electricity from other, usually more expensive, sources to meet demand.
Most droughts dramatically increase the danger of fires on wild land. When wild lands are destroyed by fire, the resulting erosion can cause heavy silting of streams, rivers, and reservoirs. Serious damage to aquatic life, irrigation, and power production then occurs. (See the section, “Wildfires.”)
Drought is often associated with extreme heat. Wildlife, pets, livestock, crops, and humans are vulnerable to the high heat that accompanies drought. When temperatures reach 90 degrees and above, people and animals are more likely to suffer sunstroke, heat cramps, and heat exhaustion. (See the section, “Extreme Heat.”)
Normal Frequency Drought is a normal part of virtually all climates. However, an ample water supply is critical to the economic well being of the United States and of Oklahoma. During droughts, crops do not mature, wildlife and livestock are undernourished, land values decrease, and unemployment increases.
Given that six major drought events have occurred in Oklahoma over the past 50 years and that nine notable droughts occurred nationwide in the twentieth century, one may logically conclude that Oklahoma can expect a drought every decade and that we can expect droughts to occur more frequently than the country as a whole. However, long- term forecasts of droughts are difficult and inexact. There is no commonly accepted way of determining the probability that is analogous to the 100-year or 1-percent-annual flood chance.
The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) is preparing the National Drought Atlas to provide information on the magnitude and frequency of minimum precipitation and stream flow for the contiguous United States. On average the July-to-January period is the lowest six-month period of stream flow throughout the U.S. and is used to characterize drought. The mean monthly flow from July to January has a once-in-20- years chance of falling below a level that would classify it as a drought. In other words, the average occurrence of drought is once every twenty years. Oklahoma, with one per ten years over the past 50 years, is obviously at a greater than normal risk from drought.
Measurements A variety of measures are used to predict the severity and impact of droughts, but each one measures different aspects or types of drought. Any single index cannot describe everything about the original data, and the indices are only approximations of real-world phenomena.
The Palmer Index, the most familiar and widely used, measures the departure from normal precipitation. This index uses a range from 4 (extremely wet) to –4 (extremely dry). It incorporates temperature, precipitation, evaporation, runoff, and soil moisture
3–31
when designating the degree of drought. Hydrologic indices of drought (such as groundwater levels, reservoir volumes, or water levels) may be used to determine surface water supplies.
3.7.2 Historical Events The National Weather Service’s current drought monitor map (see below) illustrates the pervasive nature and degrees of dryness and prolonged droughts in several areas of the country.
Nine notable droughts occurred during the twentieth century in the United States. Damage estimates are not available for most of these, however estimates indicate that the 1976-1977 drought in the Great Plains, Upper Midwest, and far Western States caused direct losses of $10-$15 billion. The 1987-1989 drought cost $39 billion, including agricultural losses, river transportation disruption, water supply problems, wildfires, and more general economic losses.
Approximately 20% of the contiguous United States is currently suffering from the effects of prolonged severe to extreme drought. Parts of the east coast have been particularly hard hit, and the drought in those areas is so severe that months of above- normal rainfall would be necessary to end it, according to the National Weather Service.
In Oklahoma, five major drought events were reported over the past 50 years resulting in damage to crops estimated at $900 million.
3–32
Major droughts in Oklahoma, as determined from stream flow records collected since the early 1920s, have predominantly occurred during four periods: 1929-1941, 1951-1957, 1961-1972, and 1975-1982.
One of the greatest natural disasters in U.S. history and the most severe and devastating to Oklahoma was the decade-long drought in the 1930s that has become known as the Dust Bowl. Reaching its peak from 1935 through 1938, high temperatures and low rainfall combined to destroy crops and livestock. High winds literally blew the land away, causing massive soil erosion. Hundreds of small rural communities were ruined and about 800,000 people were displaced. The total expenditure by the American Red Cross for drought relief in Oklahoma in 1930-1931 was the third largest ever in the nation.
Oklahoma has begun the new century with drought conditions. Since June of 2001, Oklahoma has received only 71 percent of its normal rainfall, according to the Oklahoma Climatological Survey.
Currently, lack of rainfall and an infestation of insects are taking a toll on western Oklahoma's wheat crop. State officials say 26 percent of the wheat crop is in very poor shape and conditions are so dry in the Panhandle that soil erosion is beginning to occur. The state's "wheat belt" region, the area around and west of U.S. 81, has received less than 50 percent Drought conditions in the western states have impacted wheat crops and some local water supplies of its normal rainfall since October, said Derek Arndt, climatologist with the Oklahoma Climatological Survey.
In northeastern Oklahoma, an area referred to as “Green Country” for its forests, lakes, and streams, is not immune to the growing spread of drought. The big lakes in this area such as Keystone, Eufaula, Tenkiller, Broken Bow, and Fort Gibson have been at full conservation storage levels.
Birch, Skiatook and Grand lakes are at low levels. Skiatook Lake was between 5 and 6 feet below normal, about 17% down, according to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report. Birch was nearly 3 feet down, and Grand Lake was 8 feet down. However, none have dropped as dramatically as Copan Lake and Hulah Lake.
3.7.3 Vulnerable Population In all droughts agriculture feels the impact, especially in non-irrigated areas such as dry land farms and rangelands. Other heavy water users, such as landscapers, are also negatively impacted. Water related activities of residential users might be restricted.
3–33
Droughts also cause power shortages in Oklahoma because much of the state’s power comes from hydroelectric plants. Therefore, heavy electricity users are affected, usually by having to purchase more expensive replacement power.
Generally, in times of severe drought when water shortages reach near-disaster proportions, states rely on the federal government to provide relief to drought victims. Forty separate drought relief programs administered by 16 Federal agencies provided nearly $8 billion in relief as a result of the series of drought years during the mid-1970s. Federal assistance efforts totaled more than $5 billion in response to the 1987–1989 drought. However, since the disastrous droughts of the mid-1970s, most states have taken a more active role in prevention and mitigation, and drought contingency plans are now in place in at least 27 states.
3.7.4 Conclusion There are signs that drought is becoming an increasing problem in the United States, including Oklahoma. However, it is difficult to predict drought probabilities for the near future because of the nature and complexity of the hazard.
Past drought response and recovery activities in Oklahoma, on both state and local levels, have not been successful. Planning for the state’s critical and emergency water resources needs should not be done only during times of drought crises. There is a need to focus more on long-term water management and planning issues; to integrate the activities of numerous agencies with drought-related missions into a coherent national approach; and to achieve better coordination of mitigation, response, and planning efforts between state and federal officials.
3.7.5 Sources King County Office of Emergency Management, “Droughts,” at Web address: www.metrokc.gov/prepare/hiva/drought.htm. Office of Emergency Management, King County, Washington.
Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, p. 174–181. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1997.
Nascenzi, Nicole. “Drought, insects threaten state wheat crop,” Tulsa World. March 14, 2002.
Wilhite, D.A. (Ed.). Drought Assessment, Management, and Planning: Theory and Case Studies. Natural Resource Management and Policy, Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993
“NOAA Reports Droughts May Linger in East / West,” at Web address: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/. NOAA Magazine, March 14, 2002.
3–34
Oklahoma Strategic All-Hazards Mitigation Plan, “Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment,” p. 7. Oklahoma Department of Civil Emergency Management, September 2001.
Oklahoma Water Resources Bulletin, p. 5, at Web address: http://www.state.ok.us/~owrb/features/drought.html. Oklahoma Water Resources Board, March 27, 2002.
“Record Warm Winter in Much of Mideast and Northeast: Drought worsens along Eastern Seaboard,” at Web address: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/. NOAA Magazine, March 14, 2002.
Summers, Laura. “Drought Threatens Hulah Lake,” Tulsa World, April 3, 2002.
Tortorelli, R.L. Floods and Droughts: Oklahoma, National Water Summary 1988-89: US Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 2375.USGS. Water Resources of Oklahoma.
“Worst drought seen in parts of U.S.,” at Web address: www.msnbc.com/news/ (article no longer available).
3–35
3.8 Expansive Soils
Soils and soft rock that swell and shrink with changes in moisture content are commonly known as expansive soils. These soils are also referred to as “swelling clays,” because clay materials are most susceptible to swelling and shrinking. Dry clays are capable of absorbing water and will increase in volume in an amount proportional to the amount of water absorbed.
3.8.1 Hazard Profile Changes in soil volume present a hazard primarily to structures built on top of expansive soils.
Most engineering problems caused by volume changes in swelling clays result from human activities that modify the local environment, and usually involve swelling clays beneath areas covered by buildings and slabs or layers of concrete and asphalt. Damage to the built environment results from differential vertical movement that occurs as clay moisture content adjusts to the Almost half of Tulsa’s property is underlain by clay soils with a changed environment. high shrink-swell potential
The total annual cost of 1) expansive soil-related damage and 2) preventative design of moderate to high-risk structures in the United States has been conservatively estimated at just under $2.5 billion. Recent estimates put the annual damage as high as $7 billion.
Because the hazard develops gradually and seldom presents a threat to life, expansive soils have received limited attention despite their costly effects. Many problems are not recognized as being related to expansive soils or may be considered only nuisances and therefore never repaired.
Effects The most extensive damage from expansive soils occurs to highways and streets. The increase in soil volume also causes damage to foundations. The most obvious manifestations of damage to buildings are sticking doors, uneven floors, and cracked foundations, floors, walls, ceilings, and windows. If damage is severe, the cost of repair may exceed the value of the building.
3–36
Normal Frequency Out of the 250,000 homes built each year on expansive soils, 10% sustain significant damage during their useful lives, some beyond repair, and 60% sustain minor damage. For all types of building construction, annual losses of $740 million are estimated.
Measurements The risk associated with expansive soil is related to swelling potential in a qualitative manner: high, moderate to slight, and little to no swelling potential. Probability and frequency analyses have not been prepared because of the nature of occurrence of this hazard, which is consistent with other geologic hazards that occur rarely or slowly over time.
The Oklahoma Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service have an ongoing program to evaluate the expansive tendencies of soils and shale formations in the state. Data on shrink-swell potential for each major soil type is kept for 77 counties.
3.8.2 Historical Events In Oklahoma, numerous foundation failures caused by soil shrinkage occurred during the unusually hot and dry summer of 1998.
3.8.3 Vulnerable Population The effects of expansive soils are most prevalent in regions of moderate to high precipitation, where prolonged periods of drought are followed by long periods of rainfall. The most problematic soil type for expansive soils is found in the semiarid West- central United States.
Houses and small buildings are impacted more by expansive soils than larger buildings. Large buildings are not as susceptible because their weight counters pressures from soil swelling. The greatest damage occurs when small buildings are constructed when clays are dry (such as during a drought) and then subsequent soaking rains swell the clay. Other cases of damage involve increases of moisture volume from broken or leaking water and sewer lines, over-watering of lawns and landscape, and modifications of the surface that produce ponding.
In Oklahoma, the principal geologic areas that have high shrink-swell potential are the Cretaceous shales that crop out in the southern part of the state.
Expansive soils for the City of Tulsa are shown in Figure 3–3 on the next page.
3–37
3.8.4 Conclusion For large areas of the United States, little information is reported other than field observations of the physical characteristics of clay of a particular stratigraphic unit. Therefore, fixed criteria for determining the swelling potential have not been devised. However, the Oklahoma Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service have an ongoing program to evaluate the expansive tendencies of soils and shale formations in the state.
Houses and one-story commercial buildings are more apt to be damaged by the expansion of swelling clays than are multi-story buildings, which usually are heavy enough to counter swelling pressures. However, if constructed on wet clay, multi-story buildings may also be damaged by clay shrinkage when moisture levels are substantially reduced.
3.8.5 Sources Bennison, A.P., et al. Tulsa’s Physical Environment, Tulsa Geological Society, 1973.
Landslides and Expansive Soils in Oklahoma, at Web address: www.ou.edu/special/ogs- pttc/earthsci/landsl.htm. Oklahoma Geological Survey, Earth Sciences, October, 1998.
Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, p. 122–125. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1997.
Soil Survey of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1977.
3–39
3.9 Urban Fires
Home fire is the fifth leading unintentional cause of injury and death in the United States, behind motor vehicle crashes, falls, poisoning by solids or liquids, and drowning. It also ranks as the first cause of death for children under the age of 15 at home. Roughly 80% of all fire deaths occur where people sleep, such as in homes, dormitories, barracks, or hotels. The majority of fatal fires occur when people are less likely to be alert, such as nighttime sleeping hours. Nearly all home and other building fires are preventable, even arsons.
3.9.1 Hazard Profile Fires are an excellent example of how natural hazards interact in ways that spiral out of control. Lightning, high winds, earthquakes, volcanoes, and floods can trigger or exacerbate fires. Lightning can trigger structural fires. For example, in 1994, a $1.5 million historic mansion in Pennsylvania was lost to a Frame houses in the poorer central and north sections of the city lightning-triggered fire. are particularly vulnerable to urban fire Buildings with rooftop storage tanks for flammable liquids are particularly susceptible.
Effects The leading cause of death in a fire is asphyxiation by a three-to-one ratio over burns. Fire consumes the oxygen and increases the concentration of deadly carbon monoxide and other toxic gases in the air. Inhaling carbon monoxide can cause loss of consciousness or death within minutes. The heat from a hostile fire exceeds anything to which a person is normally exposed. A fully developed room fire has temperatures over 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit. Fire generates a black, impenetrable smoke that blocks vision and stings the eyes, making it often impossible to navigate and evacuate the building on fire.
Normal Frequency Approximately 900 adults die in fires annually in the United States.
3.9.2 Historical Events The Great Chicago Fire of 1871 started around 9:00 on Sunday evening, October 8, somewhere in or near the O’Leary barn. Firemen might have been able to contain the blaze but for a series of technological and human failures in the alarm system. Fanned by
3–40
a strong wind, in a city largely built of wood structures, the blaze raged for nearly 30 hours. The “Burnt District” encompassed an area four miles long and an average of three- quarters of a mile wide—more than 2000 acres. About 18,000 buildings ($200 million in property, in 1871 dollars) were destroyed, about a third of the valuation of the entire city. One hundred thousand Chicagoans lost their homes and 1,152 were killed.
The 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire ranks as one of the most significant natural disasters of all time. It was a textbook case in how natural hazards interact to make fire impossible to stop. The result was 3,000 dead, 225,000 injured, and $406 million in property damage (in 1906 dollars).
On October 20, 1991, a large, devastating fire occurred in the scenic hills above the cities of Oakland and Berkeley, California. Burning embers carried by high winds from a small but growing “duff fire” (from partly decayed organic matter) ignited overgrown vegetation and led to the further ignition of tree crowns and the combustible construction materials of adjacent homes, including many with wood shingle roofs. The result was a major combined wild land and urban fire that burned over 1,600 acres, killed 25 people and injured 150 others, destroyed nearly 2,449 single-family dwellings and 437 apartment and condominium units, and did an estimated $1.5 billion in damage.
In the United States during 1991, structural fires caused 4,465 civilian deaths and 21,850 injuries, and resulted in an estimated $8.3 billion in damage. In 1995, 3,640 people died in reported home fires—roughly 10 people per day. In addition, every year thousands of people are injured in home fires, many hospitalized for severe burns, and some disfigured for life.
Real progress has been made nationally and locally in reducing the number of urban fires and fire-related fatalities. Nationally, in 1877 there were 3,264,000 fires, and 7,395 fatalities. By 2000, both figures have been reduced by almost half to 1,708,000 fires, and 4,045 fire-related deaths.
In Tulsa, records of fire related deaths have been maintained since 1933. For the 23-year period from 1966 to 1989, 311 persons died from urban fires, an average of 13.5 per year. Since 1990, however, fire deaths have been dramatically reduced by two thirds to only five in 2001. The trend in injuries has also dropped from 54 in 1988, to only six in 2001.
In the ten-year period from 1990 to 2000, according to Tulsa Fire Department records, there have been a total of 9,379 fires, with $146.8 million in property losses. The number of fires per year has dropped from 1,041 in 1990, to 733 in 2000.
3.9.3 Vulnerable Population In Tulsa, from 1990 to 2000, the vast majority of fires- 7,513 of a total of 9,379 (80%), occurred in residences. The average residential fire did $11,753 in damage.
In residences, the majority of fatal fires occur when people are less alert or sleeping. Victims are disproportionately children or elderly. Of the fires that kill children, two out of every five are started by children playing with fire.
3–41
States with the largest populations tend to have the greatest number of fire-related fatalities. The western United States is susceptible because of prolonged warm winds that can spread sparks and embers. Areas where seismic events are more likely to occur are also susceptible, particularly in areas where natural gas distribution systems can rupture (evident in 1989 during the San Francisco earthquake). Floods can also trigger fires. Volcanic events may involve multiple fires.
3.9.4 Conclusion All areas of the United States are exposed to personal injury and property damage as a result of fires caused by natural hazards. Fires occur year-round, but the rate of residential fires in January is twice that of the summer months. Fatalities tend to be distributed according to population density. In 1987, 52% of the recorded fires occurred in 10 states. The public information and education and smoke alarm programs of the Tulsa Fire Department have proven successful, reducing the number of residential fires by almost a third, and cutting fire-related deaths by two-thirds from 1990 to 2000.
3.9.5 Sources Interview and data provided by Richard Hall, planner, Tulsa Fire Department, 2002.
1906 San Francisco Earthquake and Fire, at Web address: zpub.com/sf/history/1906earth.html. San Francisco History.
Helmer, Bessie Bradwell. The Great Conflagration, at Web address: www.chicagohs.org/fire/conflag/. The Great Chicago Fire and the Web of Memory, The Chicago Historical Society, 1996.
Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, p. 264, 266–267. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1997.
Talking About Disaster: Guide for Standard Messages, “Fire,” p. 51. National Disaster Coalition, Washington, D.C., 1999.
The Oakland Berkeley Hills Fire: Abstract, at Web address: http://www.firewise.org/pubs/theOaklandBerkeleyHillsFire/abstract.html. Firewise.
3–42
3.10 Wildfires
As more people make their homes in woodland settings in or near forests, rural areas, or remote mountain sites, they face the real danger of wildfire. Wildfires often begin unnoticed and spread quickly, igniting brush, trees, and homes.
Wildfires can move on three different levels. A surface fire is the most common type and burns along the floor of a forest, moving slowly and killing or damaging trees. A ground fire is usually started by lightning and burns on or below the forest floor in the humus layer down to the mineral soil. A crown fire spreads rapidly by wind and moves by jumping along the tops of trees.
3.10.1 Hazard Profile Wildfire is a serious and growing hazard over much of the United States, posing a great threat to life and property, particularly when it moves from forest or rangeland into developed areas. However, periodic forest, grassland, and tundra fires are a natural process in the environment, as natural and as vital as rain, snow, or Wildfire is mainly a hazard for homes and properties on the wind. Naturally occurring or rural/urban interface zone non-native species of trees, brush, and grasses fuel wildfires.
Fire suppression is now recognized to have created a larger fire hazard, because live and dead vegetation accumulates in areas where fire has been excluded. In addition, the absence of fire has altered or disrupted the cycle of natural plant succession and wildlife habitat in many areas. Consequently, United States land management agencies are committed to finding ways of reintroducing fire into natural ecosystems (such as prescribed burning) while recognizing that fire fighting and some types of fire suppression are still important.
The four categories of wildfires experienced throughout the United States are:
· Interface or intermix fires are those fueled by both wild land vegetation and the built-environment. · Firestorms are events of such extreme intensity that effective suppression is virtually impossible. They occur during extremely dry weather and generally burn until conditions change or available fuel is exhausted.
3–43
· Prescribed fires are those that are intentionally set or selected natural fires that are allowed to burn for beneficial purposes. · Wild land fires are fueled by natural vegetation and typically occur in national forests and parks.
Causes Topography, fuel, and weather are the three principal factors that impact wildfire hazards and behavior. Other hazard events have the potential to cause wildfires, such as earthquakes, lightning, and high winds. For example, in 1991, winds gusting to 62 mph downed power lines and caused 92 separate wildfires in Washington.
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) figures for 1990 indicate that 25.7% of reported wildfires were caused by arson, 24% were caused by debris burns, and 13.3% were caused by lightning.
Lightning can cause particularly difficult fires when dry thunderstorms move across an area that is suffering from seasonal drought. Multiple fires can be started simultaneously. In dry fuels, these fires can cause massive damage before containment.
Effects Wildfires leave problems behind them, even when the last ember is extinguished. Post- fire effects can trigger additional consequences that cascade into other serious hazard events. The loss of ground-surface cover from a fire and the chemical transformation of burned soils make watersheds more susceptible to erosion from rainstorms. Subsequent unchecked debris flows can then carry mud, rock, chemicals, and other debris into water supplies, reducing water quality. (See “Historical Events,” below.)
It is impossible to fully assess the economic impact of wildfires due to incomplete reporting. However, the U.S. Forest Service compiles statistics for wildfires on federal lands and is the primary federal source of information.
Normal Frequency According to the National Interagency Fire Center, between 1985 and 1994 there were about 73,000 fires each year on federal lands, burning a total of over 3 million acres and 900 homes, and costing more that $411.5 million to suppress.
3.10.2 Historical Events The single worst wildfire event in United States history, in terms of deaths, occurred in Wisconsin in 1871, when 1,182 people were killed.
Between October 25 and November 3, 1993, 21 major wild land fires broke out in California, fanned by hot, dry winds. The fires collectively burned over 189,000 acres and destroyed 1,171 structures. Three people died and hundreds were injured. Combined property damage was estimated at approximately $1 billion.
3–44
In 1994, one of the worst years for wildfires since the early 1900s, 79,107 fires burned over four million acres and cost $934 million to put out. Tragically, 34 firefighters lost their lives. On July 6, 1994, 14 firefighters died in one terrible incident during the South Canyon Fire just west of Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Another wildfire burned 2,000 acres of forest and scrub on the steep slopes of Storm King Mountain, Colorado, leaving it exposed to erosion. The following September, torrential rains created burned debris flows that inundated a 3-mile stretch of Interstate 70. The flows engulfed 30 cars, sweeping two into the Colorado River. Some travelers were seriously injured, but fortunately there were no deaths.
In May 1996, an 11,900-acre fire burned most of the Buffalo Creek and Spring Creek watersheds. These small watersheds feed into the Strontia Springs Reservoir, which supplies more than 75 percent of the municipal water for the cities of Denver and Aurora. Two months after the fire, a severe thunderstorm caused flooding from the burned area, killing two people. In addition, the Denver Water Department immediately experienced a deterioration of water quality from burned debris and high levels of manganese. Two years after the fire, phosphate levels in the water remained high.
In Oklahoma during 1994, there were 16,781 grass, crop, and wild land fires that burned 61,634 acres. Four fire fighters died that year.
3.10.3 Vulnerable Population Wildfires occur in virtually all of the United States. The western states, with their more arid climates and prevalent conifer and brush fuel types, are subject to more frequent wildfires. Wildfires are the most destructive in California, but they have become an increasingly frequent phenomenon nationwide. People are becoming more vulnerable to wildfires by choosing to live in wild land settings, and the value of exposed property is increasing at a faster rate than population.
In the Tulsa area, the vulnerable areas are the rural/urban interface zones. According to the Tulsa Fire Department, wildfires are not a serious problem for Tulsa. The Tulsa Fire Department assists adjacent communities and rural fire districts with wildfires that threaten their jurisdictions and could affect Tulsa’s rural/urban development.
3.10.4 Conclusion Wildfires are a serious and growing hazard because people continue to build their homes into woodland areas. The value of the property exposed to wildfires is increasing more rapidly, especially in the western states.
There were fire suppression measures taken in the past that caused an even greater fire hazard because ground cover that had been burning at natural intervals was able to build up. Western ecosystems have adapted to and have become dependent on wildfires, which play an essential role by thinning forests and creating stands of different plant species. Land management agencies are now changing their policies concerning the control of naturally occurring wildfires.
3–45
Like the rest of the United States, Oklahoma is vulnerable to some wildfires.
3.10.5 Sources Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, p. 234, 236, 239. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1997.
Talking About Disaster: Guide for Standard Messages, “Wildfire,” p. 135. National Disaster Coalition, Washington, D.C., 1999.
USGS Wildland Fire Research, at Web address: http://www.usgs.gov/themes/Wildfire/fire.html. U.S. Geological Survey, August 23, 2000.
3–46
3.11 Earthquakes
An earthquake is a sudden, rapid shaking of the ground caused by the fracture and movement of rock beneath the Earth's surface. Most severe earthquakes take place where the huge tectonic plates that form the Earth's surface collide and slide slowly over, under, and past each other. They can also occur along any of the multitude of fault and fracture lines within the plates themselves.
The faults most likely to affect Oklahoma are the New Madrid Fault, centered in the Missouri Bootheel region, and the Meers Fault, located in southwestern Oklahoma near Lawton.
3.11.1 Hazard Profile As the Earth’s crust moves and bends, stresses are built up, sometimes for hundreds of years, before suddenly breaking or slipping. This abrupt release of accumulated tension can be devastating to human communities on the surface.
The destructiveness of an earthquake depends upon a number of factors, including the magnitude of the tremor, Although located in the relatively quiet Central Plains Province, Tulsa’s nearness to the New Madrid, Missouri, fault direction of the fault, distance exposes the city to VI intensity tremors from the epicenter, regional geology, local soils, and the design characteristics of buildings and infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, and pipelines.
Earthquake intensity can be significantly affected by the stability of underlying soils. For example, during the Northridge, California earthquake, three times as much damage was done to single-family homes and buried utilities in ground failure zones than in nearby areas where the footing was more solid. Also, the intensity of West Coast tremors is dissipated by the relative “warmth” of the region’s geology. By contrast, the thick Pennsylvanian sandstone and limestone strata of the central United States are much more efficient conductors of tremors. Consequently, a 6.8-magnitude earthquake in the New Madrid Fault would have a much wider impact than a comparable event on the California coast.
Urbanization is probably the most important factor in translating earthquake magnitude into human impacts. In the continental United States, Alaska has the greatest number of large earthquakes—over a dozen above 7.3 magnitude between 1899 and 1999. However, these severe quakes resulted in relatively little loss of life or damage, since all but one occurred in uninhabited areas.
3–47
Effects Earthquakes can cause poorly compacted, clay-free soils to temporarily lose strength and behave like viscous fluids rather than solids. This “liquefaction” can result in ground failure and damage to structures and buried utilities.
Normal Frequency In the United States, California experiences the most frequent damaging earthquakes, and Alaska has the greatest number of large earthquakes.
Oklahoma has experienced an average of 50 earthquakes each year since records have been kept by the Oklahoma Geological Survey. Most of these earthquakes were so small that they could not be felt by people. Only about two or three per year have been large enough to be felt and most were so small they caused no damage.
The Meers Fault has had two major ruptures in the last 3000 years, the last one about 1600 years ago. If the fault has a 1500-year periodicity, it could be due for a major event in the next one or two hundred years.
Tulsa and its adjacent counties experienced 47 earthquakes between 1977 and 2000, or about two per year. None of these were felt events. The most likely major earthquake event that could impact the area would probably originate in the New Madrid Fault Zone, which has been relatively quiet for 150 years. Seismologists estimate the probability of a 6 to 7 magnitude earthquake in the New Madrid area in the next 50 years to be higher than 90 percent.
Measurements Modern seismological technology has greatly enhanced the capability of scientists to sense earthquakes. Before the development of today’s delicate sensors, only “felt” earthquakes were captured in the historical record.
Scientists use two standard measures to classify an earthquake’s severity: magnitude and intensity. These measures are sometimes referred to as the Richter Scale (magnitude) and the Modified Mercalli (intensity).
Magnitude is an Arabic number representing the total amount of energy released by the earthquake source. It is based on the amplitude of the earthquake waves recorded on seismographs that have a common calibration. The magnitude of an earthquake is thus represented by a single, instrumentally determined value.
Intensity, expressed as a Roman numeral, is based on the earthquake’s observed effects on people, buildings and natural features. It varies depending on the location of the observer with respect to the earthquake’s epicenter. In general, the intensity decreases with distance from the fault, but other factors such as rupture direction and soil type also influence the amount of shaking and damage.
The Modified Mercalli and Richter Scales are compared in the following table.
3–48
Table 3–13: Comparison of Mercalli and Richter Scales
Mercalli Richter Description
I Vibrations are recorded by instruments. People do not feel any Earth movement. A few people might notice movement if they are at rest and/or on the upper floors of tall II 0-4.3 buildings. Shaking felt indoors; hanging objects swing. People outdoors might not realize that an III earthquake is occurring. Dishes rattle; standing cars rock; trees shake. Most people indoors feel movement. Hanging IV objects swing. Dishes, windows, and doors rattle. A few people outdoors may feel movement. 4.3-4.8 Doors swing; liquid spills from glasses; sleepers awake. Almost everyone feels movement. V Dishes are broken. Pictures on the wall move. Small objects move or are turned over. Trees might shake. People walk unsteadily; windows break; pictures fall off walls. Everyone feels movement. VI Objects fall from shelves. Furniture moves. Plaster in walls might crack. Trees and bushes shake. Damage is slight in poorly built buildings. No structural damage. 4.8-6.2 Difficult to stand; plaster, bricks, and tiles fall; large bells ring. Drivers feel their cars VII shaking. Some furniture breaks. Loose bricks fall from buildings. Damage is slight to moderate in well-built buildings; considerable in poorly built buildings. Chimneys fall; branches break; cracks in wet ground. Drivers have trouble steering. Houses that are not bolted down might shift on their foundations. Tall structures such as towers and VIII chimneys might twist and fall. Well-built buildings suffer slight damage. Poorly built structures suffer severe damage. Water levels in wells might change. General panic; damage to foundations; sand and mud bubble from ground. Well-built 6.2-7.3 buildings suffer considerable damage. Houses that are not bolted down move off their IX foundations. Some underground pipes are broken. The ground cracks. Reservoirs suffer serious damage. Most buildings destroyed; large landslides; water thrown out of rivers and lakes. Some X bridges are destroyed. Dams are seriously damaged. The ground cracks in large areas. Railroad tracks are bent slightly. Roads break up; large cracks appear in ground; rocks fall. Most buildings collapse. Some XI bridges are destroyed. Underground pipelines are destroyed. Railroad tracks are badly bent. 7.3-8.9 Total destruction; "waves" seen on ground surface; river courses altered; vision distorted. XII Almost everything is destroyed. Objects are thrown into the air. Large amounts of rock may move.
3.11.2 Historical Events World history is punctuated with hundreds of earthquake catastrophes. In 1556 the Shansi, China, earthquake killed 800,000 people. An earthquake in Lisbon in 1775 took 70,000 lives. More recently, a moderate 6.7-magnitude earthquake struck Northridge, California, on January 17, 1994, killing 57 people, injuring 9,000, and causing over $25 billion in damage. A year later, in Kobe, Japan, a 6.9 magnitude tremor killed 5,100 people, injured 27,000, destroyed 100,000 buildings, and did $120 billion in damage.
In the United States, California and Alaska have earthquakes the most frequently, but the largest earthquake felt in the United States in historical times occurred in Missouri, along the New Madrid Fault. There, in 1811 and 1812, three earthquakes larger than a magnitude 8 totally destroyed the town of New Madrid, caused the land to roll in visible
3–49
waves, raised and sank land as much as 20 feet, and formed and emptied lakes. The tremors rang bells in church steeples as far away as Boston, Massachusetts. These earthquakes were probably the first ones felt by residents in Oklahoma in historical times. Intensity VII earthquakes hit the New Madrid area again in January 1852 and June 1862.
The earliest documented quake in what is now Oklahoma occurred on October 22, 1882, near Ft. Gibson, Indian Territory. The Cherokee Advocate reported that “the trembling and vibrating were so severe as to cause doors and window shutters to open and shut, hogs to squeal, poultry to run and hide, and cattle to low.” Other felt quakes occurred near Cushing, in Payne County, in December 1900, and in Rogers County on November 8, 1915.
The largest earthquake on record in the state—a VII-intensity event that registered 5.5 on the Richter Scale—happened near El Reno on April 9, 1952. It was apparently caused by slippage along the Nemaha Fault. The tremor toppled chimneys and smokestacks, cracked bricks on buildings, broke windows and dishes, and was felt as far away as Austin, Texas, and Des Moines, Iowa. A 4.1-magnitude, VII-intensity earthquake struck Catoosa on October 30, 1956, causing minor damage in Tulsa and Beggs. Most recently, a 4.0 earthquake shook Ada on September 6, 1997.
The most recent felt earthquake in the Tulsa area was the Catoosa tremor of October 1956.
3.11.3 Vulnerable Population Most earthquake injuries and fatalities occur within buildings from collapsing walls and roofs, flying glass, and falling objects. As a result, the extent of a community’s risk depends not just upon its location relative to a known fault, and its underlying geology and soils, but also on the design of its structures. Buildings constructed to earlier seismic standards (or to no standard) can pose major threats to life and the continued functioning of key public services during an earthquake disaster. Un-reinforced masonry structures are the most vulnerable, while wood frame structures typically perform well. Of special concern are the design and construction of critical facilities such as hospitals and transportation facilities, oil and gas pipelines, electrical power and communication facilities, and water supply and sewage treatment facilities.
Oklahoma is in the relatively stable Central Plains Province. It does have a sustained level of seismicity due to the complex seismic zone that includes the Meers, Nemaha, Central Oklahoma, Choctaw, Chickasha, and Windingstair Faults.
As shown in the map at the left, the majority of Oklahoma earthquakes occur in south central Oklahoma where the Ouachita, Arbuckle and
3–50
Wichita mountains converge. They are concentrated in Garvin, Grady, McClain, and Canadian Counties. Note that earthquakes in the northeastern part of the state are relatively rare.
Tulsa’s exposure to seismic risk is low. Any earthquake risk would most likely come from its proximity to the New Madrid and Meers Faults. Local earthquakes have been relatively infrequent and of small magnitude, causing little damage. According to Dr. James Lawson, chief geophysicist of the Oklahoma Geological Survey’s Seismic Observatory at Leonard, the risk of an earthquake in the New Madrid Fault Zone should not be over emphasized. He believes a major seismic event there would have no greater impact on Tulsa than a locally generated earthquake. An 8-magnitude event in New Madrid would likely produce only VI-intensity tremors in northeastern Oklahoma, and would not be as severe as the Ft. Gibson quake of 1882.
3.11.4 Conclusion Oklahoma is classified at moderate risk from earthquakes, due to its proximity to the South Central Oklahoma and New Madrid Seismic Zones. Almost all of the South Central Oklahoma earthquakes are too small to be felt and cause no visible damage. Unfelt earthquakes can, however, adversely affect the integrity of local buildings, infrastructure, and lifelines.
In the last 24 years, only five earthquakes have been recorded in Tulsa County. The largest of these was the Catoosa earthquake of October 1956. Although relatively safe from locally generated earthquakes, the region’s underlying geology exposes Tulsa to some risk from a severe earthquake in the New Madrid Seismic Zone. When Tulsa’s infrastructure and critical facilities are reviewed for integrity against tornadoes and high winds, an analysis of their ability to ride through a VI-intensity earthquake without serious damage should be included.
3.11.5 Sources Oklahoma Geophysical Observatory Examines Earthquakes in Oklahoma, at Web address: http://www.ou.edu/special/ogs-pttc/quake.htm. University of Oklahoma, 1996.
Oklahoma Strategic All-Hazards Mitigation Plan, “Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment,” p. 7. Oklahoma Department of Civil Emergency Management, September 2001.
Program Statement, at Web address: www.cusec.org. Central United States Earthquake Consortium.
Talking About Disaster: Guide for Standard Messages, “Earthquake,” p. 41–49. National Disaster Coalition, Washington, D.C., 1999.
von Hake, Carl A. Earthquake History of Oklahoma, Abridged from Earthquake Information Bulletin, Vol. 8, Number 2. USGS National Earthquake Information Center, March–April 1976.
3–51
3.12 Hazardous Materials Events
Hazardous materials are chemical substances that, if released or misused, can pose a threat to the environment or human health. These chemicals are used in industry, agriculture, medicine, research, and consumer goods. Hazardous materials come in the form of explosives, flammable and combustible substances, poisons, and radioactive materials. These substances are most often released as a result of transportation accidents or chemical accidents at plant sites.
The federal government has established detailed systems for keeping track of Tier 2 hazardous materials sites. The Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986 defines a Tier 2 site as any location that has, for any 24-hour period, either 1) specified threshold amounts of defined Extremely Hazardous Substances, or 2) any other substance
requiring a Material Safety Tulsa has a significant refining industry, and is a crossroads for Data Sheet (MSDS) for highway traffic that could carry hazardous materials amounts greater than 10,000 lbs.
3.12.1 Hazard Profile Many products containing hazardous chemicals are routinely used and stored in homes. These products are also shipped daily on the nation’s highways, railroads, waterways, and pipelines. In most cases, disasters involving hazardous materials are confined to a localized area, whether an accidental release occurs at a fixed facility or in association with a transportation incident.
As many as 500,000 products pose physical or health hazards and can be defined as hazardous chemicals. Each year, over 1000 new synthetic chemicals are introduced. In an average city of 100,000 residents, 23.5 tons of toilet bowl cleaner, 13.5 tons of liquid household cleaners, and 3.5 tons of motor oil are discharged into city drains each month.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency sorts hazardous materials into six categories:
1. Toxic Agents (irritants, asphyxiates, narcotics) 2. Other Toxic Agents (hepatoxic, nephratoxic)
3–52
3. Hazardous Wastes 4. Hazardous Substances 5. Toxic Pollutants 6. Extremely Hazardous Substances
Effects Hazardous materials affect people through inhalation, ingestion, or direct contact with skin. They can cause death, serious injury, long-lasting health problems, and damage to buildings, homes and other property.
Normal Frequency An average of approximately 6,700 hazardous materials events occur each year in the United States. Of these, 5,517 are highway events, 991 occur on railroads, and 266 are due to other causes. There is an average of 280 hazardous materials releases and spills at fixed sites that occur each year.
Most hazardous materials events occur during transport. Transportation of hazardous materials on highways involves tanker trucks or trailers and certain types of specialized bulk cargo vehicles. Because of the distances traveled, it is not surprising that trucks are responsible for the greatest number of hazardous materials events.
3.12.2 Historical Events In 1984 a deadly cloud of methyl isocyanate killed thousands of people in Bhopal, India. Shortly thereafter, there was a serious chemical release at a sister plant in West Virginia. These incidents underscored demands by industrial workers and communities in several states for information on hazardous materials. Public interest and environmental organizations around the country accelerated demands for information on toxic chemicals being released “beyond the fence line”—outside the facility.
In Oklahoma in 2001 there were 28,000 Tier 2 sites.
In Tulsa in 2001 there were 503 Tier 2 sites. During the same reporting period there were 91 hazardous materials incidents in Tulsa County. Three hazardous materials events in the Tulsa area in the past five years have been significant enough to be noticed by local residents.
On February 10, 1997, a Sinclair Refinery stack at 902 W. 25th Street began emitting the thick, greenish-yellow, odorous cloud that drifted northeast across Tulsa. Sinclair officials said it could be an irritant but was non-toxic. As a precaution, city emergency officials urged people northeast of the Arkansas River and 41st Street to stay inside, close windows and doors, and turn off ventilation systems that draw air from the outside. Paramedics treated five people who complained of respiratory problems as a result of breathing the fumes.
3–53
On March 26, 1997, an explosion at Chief Supply Chemical Company, 5 miles northwest of Haskell on U.S. 64, sent up a column of smoke that could be seen for 50 miles. The fire continued to burn through the night of March 28. One employee was critically burned and later died. Chief Supply closed down.
On July 12, 2002, an over-pressured tank of toxic arsine gas exploded near the Port of Catoosa at Solkatronic Chemical Inc. Solkatronic and adjoining plants were evacuated. There were no deaths or injuries, although 100 people were taken to area hospitals as a precautionary measure.
3.12.3 Vulnerable Population A hazardous materials accident can occur anywhere. Communities located near chemical manufacturing plants are particularly at risk. However, hazardous materials are transported on our roadways, railways and waterways daily, so any area is considered vulnerable to an accident.
Oklahoma is at some risk from accidental release of hazardous materials involving transportation incidences because it is literally the crossroads of America. The state has 111,000 miles of highways, 926 miles of which are interstate highways, including Interstates 35, 40, and 44. There are also approximately 4,000 miles of railway, thousands of miles of pipeline, and over 150 navigable river miles linking barge traffic to the Mississippi River.
Hazardous materials sites for the Tulsa are shown on the map in Figure 3–4 and a list of the sites are in Appendix K.
3.12.4 Conclusion Varying quantities of hazardous materials are manufactured, used, or stored at an estimated 4.5 million facilities in the United States, from major industrial plants to local dry cleaning establishments or gardening supply stores.
The estimated annual damage from hazardous materials events is $22.4 million. Most victims of chemical accidents are injured at home. These incidents usually result from ignorance or carelessness in using flammable or combustible materials.
3–54 This page removed due to sensitive nature of information.
For more information, contact information can be located on page xviii.
3.12.5 Sources Booth, Richard (City of Tulsa, Planning and Research Division). Telephone interview by Michael Flanagan, March 26, 2002.
Brasfield, Randy (Hazardous Materials Chief, Tulsa Fire Department). Telephone interview by Michael Flanagan, April 16, 2002.
FEMA Backgrounder: Hazardous Materials, at Web address: http://www.fema.gov/library/hazmat.htm. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Virtual Library & Electronic Reading Room, 1998.
Guy, Bill (Editor, Haskell News). Telephone interview by Michael Flanagan, March 20, 2002.
McIllheney, John (Engineer, INCOG, Tulsa, OK). Telephone interview by Michael Flanagan, March 26, 2002.
Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, p. 274, 277, 280. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1997.
Oklahoma Strategic All-Hazards Mitigation Plan, “Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment,” p 6. Oklahoma Department of Civil Emergency Management, September 2001.
The Haskell News, March 27 and 29, 1997.
The Tulsa World, p. A-1, February 10, 1997.
The Tulsa World, p. A-1, July 13, 2002.
What is the Toxics Release Inventory Program, at Web address: http://www.epa.gov/tri/whatis.htm. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002.
3–56
3.13 Dam Failures
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines a dam as “a barrier constructed across a watercourse for the purpose of storage, control, or diversion of water.” Dams typically are constructed of earth, rock, concrete, or mine tailings. A dam failure is the collapse, breach, or other failure resulting in downstream flooding.
The amount of water impounded in the reservoir behind a dam is measured in acre-feet. An acre-foot is the volume of water that covers an acre of land to a depth of one foot, or approximately 325,000 gallons. As a function of upstream topography, even a very small dam may impound or detain many acre-feet or millions of gallons of water.
3.13.1 Hazard Profile The National Inventory of Dams (NID) listed about 80,000 dams in the United States in its 1997-1998 update. More than 3,300 high and significant hazard dams are located within 1 mile of a downstream population center, and more than 2,400 are located within 2 miles.
Dam failures are primarily The overtopping or forced release of a dam due to heavy rain or abnormal river flows is a threat to downstream properties caused by hydrologic or structural deficiencies. A hydrologic deficiency is inadequate spillway capacity, caused by excessive runoff from heavy precipitation. Structural deficiencies include seepage, erosion, cracking, sliding, and overturning, mainly caused by the age of a dam and lack of maintenance. The operation of a reservoir can also influence the safety of the structure.
There can be varying levels of dam failure. Partial dam failures include 1) inadequate spillway capacity that causes excess flow to overtop the dam, and 2) internal erosion through the dam or foundation. Complete failure occurs if internal erosion or overtopping results in a total structural breach, releasing a high-velocity wall of debris-laden water that rushes downstream, damaging or destroying everything in its path.
Effects In the event of a dam failure, the potential energy of the water stored behind even a small dam can cause loss of life and great property damage downstream. The following factors influence the impact of a dam failure: · Level of failure (partial or complete) · Rapidity of failure (sudden or gradual) · Amount of water released
3–57
· Nature of the development and infrastructure located downstream A break in a dam produces an extremely dangerous flood situation because of the high velocities and large volumes of water. The severity of impact on areas downstream and the height to which waters will rise are largely functions of valley topography and the volume of water released.
In some cases, there are hazardous actions that have to be taken to prevent dam failures, such as sudden releases of water when the dam is threatened with overtopping. In this case, a dam may have failed in its purpose to protect downstream people and property, without having literally or physically failed.
Measurements Any artificial water barrier structure that has a height of 25 feet or more from the natural streambed and 50 acre feet or more of storage capacity qualifies as a dam and is under the jurisdiction of the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB).
There are 4,524 dams in Oklahoma (including private structures), with approximately half (2,300) operated by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Emergency Action Plans have been filed for 160 of the most important dams in the state.
The OWRB classifies dams as high-hazard, significant-hazard, and low-hazard, depending on the amount of water stored and downstream populations. The state has 183 high-hazard dams, which must be inspected every year. There are 88 dams having significant hazard potential, which are inspected every three years. The rest (4,250) are classified as low hazard, and are inspected every five years.
High-hazard dams are so designated due to the presence of occupied dwellings immediately downstream. If a high-hazard dam fails, there will probably be loss of life. This determination does not mean that a dam is in need of repair—it could be in excellent condition or in poor condition. “High-hazard” simply reflects a dam’s potential for doing damage downstream if it were to fail.
The areas impacted are delineated using dam breach analyses that consider both “sunny day” failures and failures under flood conditions.
3.13.2 Historical Events The deadliest dam failure in United States history occurred in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, in 1889, with 2,209 people killed. Between 1960 and 1997, there have been at least 23 dam failures with one or more fatalities. Some failures also caused downstream dams to fail. There were 318 deaths as a result of these failures.
In February 1972, a privately owned tailings dam in Buffalo Creek, West Virginia, failed, devastating a 16-mile valley with 6,000 inhabitants. As a result of the failure, 125 people were killed and 3,000 left homeless. In 1976, Teton Dam in Idaho failed, causing $1 billion in property damage and leaving 11 dead. In May 1977, Laurel Run Dam in
3–58
Pennsylvania failed, killing 43 people. Six months later, Kelly Barnes Dam in Georgia failed, resulting in 39 deaths, most of them college students.
In response to the Buffalo Creek disaster, Congress enacted the National Dam Inspection Act in 1972, which authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to inventory and inspect all non-federal dams. After the Teton Dam failure, President Carter issued a memorandum on April 23, 1977, directing a review of federal dam safety activities by an ad hoc panel of recognized experts.
Despite the strengthening of dam safety programs since the 1970s, dams continue to fail, causing loss of life and millions of dollars in property damage. In July 1994, Tropical Storm Alberto caused over 230 dam failures in Georgia, resulting in 3 deaths.
There have been only two significant, documented dam failures in Oklahoma. On October 3, 1923, heavy rain caused Lake Overholser dam to fail, which displaced 15,000 residents. Cleveland, in Pawnee County, suffered losses in the half million-dollar range when the town was inundated by the Cleveland Dam break on September 4, 1940. Both events were caused by sudden and heavy rainfall.
In Tulsa County between September and October 1986, Keystone Reservoir filled to capacity, forcing the Corps of Engineers to release water at the rate of 310,000 cubic feet per second. Downstream flooding was inevitable. In Tulsa, a private west bank levee failed, causing $1.3 million in damages to 64 buildings. This was an example of how actions taken to avoid dam failure can themselves create hazards.
3.13.3 Vulnerable Population The number of fatalities resulting from dam failures is highly influenced by the number of people occupying the predicted dam failure floodplain and the amount of warning they are provided. Most dams in the United States are privately owned, located on private property, and not directly in the visual path of most Americans. This factor contributes to the challenge of raising the issue of dam safety in the public consciousness and getting the information on dam safety to those who need it.
There are 33 dams in Tulsa County. The OWRB classifies four of these dams as high hazard. These four dams expose the City of Tulsa, with a population of 393,049, to the potential natural hazard of flooding. The remaining 29 structures are low hazard, meaning there is little or no downstream population or infrastructure. The Tulsa County dams with high hazard classifications are described below. Tulsa dam break inundation areas are shown in Figure 3–5.
Keystone Dam
Location: On Arkansas River, 10 miles east of the City of Tulsa, on Highway 64 Source: Arkansas River Flows into: Arkansas River drainage basin Owner/operator: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Year built: 1964 Length: 4,600 feet
3–59
Height: 121 feet Construction material: Masonry and earth-fill Use of Dam: Water storage, flood control, hydroelectric power, and recreation Capacity: 250,700 acre feet of water Land Area: 23,610 surface acres of water Flood damage history: None to date Results of failure: Inundation of cities of Sand Springs, Tulsa, Jenks, and Bixby
Yahola Dam Location: North of Tulsa on Lake Yahola Source: Tributary of Bird Creek Flows into: Bird Creek drainage basin Owner/operator: City of Tulsa Year built: 1948 Length: 17,500 feet Height: 35 feet Construction material: Earth-fill Use of dam: Water supply for Tulsa Capacity: 6,445 acre feet of water Land area: 431 surface acres of water Flood damage history: None to date Results of failure: Inundation of North Tulsa Failures to date: None
Warrenton Lake Dam Location: Near 61st and South Yale Avenue Source: Tributary to Joe Creek Flows into: Joe Creek Drainage Basin Owner/Operator: Warren Medical Center Year built: 1936 Length: 400 feet Height: 37 feet Construction material: Earth-fill Use of Dam: Recreation Capacity: Contains 41 acre feet of water Flood damage history: None to date Results of failure: Downstream property inundation Failures to date: None
A.B. Jewell Dam Location: East 21st Street and 193rd E. Avenue Source: Local drainage Flows into: East side of Tulsa Owner/operator: City of Tulsa Year built: 1950 Length: 13,300 feet Height: 15 feet Construction material: Earth-fill Use of Dam: Raw water storage Capacity: Contains 325 acre feet of water Flood damage history: None to date Results of failure: Inundation of parts of East Tulsa Failures to date: None
3–60 This page removed due to sensitive nature of information.
For more information, contact information can be located on page xviii. This page removed due to sensitive nature of information.
For more information, contact information can be located on page xviii.
3.13.5 Conclusion People, property, and infrastructure downstream of dams could be subject to devastating damage in the event of failure. The areas impacted are delineated using dam breach analyses that consider both “sunny day” failures and failures under flood conditions. The downstream extent of impact areas and the height to which waters will rise are largely functions of valley topography and the volume of water released during failure.
If a dam has a classification of being high hazard, it means that failure of that dam would most likely result in loss of life. This classification does not mean the dam is necessarily at risk of failing.
The most important factor for public safety is the timeliness and effectiveness of warning given to vulnerable downstream populations. Dams are often not visible from the neighborhoods of most Americans and therefore dam safety is not in the public consciousness.
Tulsa is exposed to flooding from failure of four high-hazard upstream dams. These dams are Keystone (Arkansas River), Yahola (Bird Creek), Warrenton (Joe Creek), and A.B. Jewell. The dam posing the greatest threat to Tulsa is Keystone. There are about 11,000 residences and 1,700 commercial properties exposed to damage if Keystone Dam failed. However, the potential for failure is low because it is operated by the Corps of Engineers and is inspected at least once each year.
When there is a threat of a dam overtopping, the action of releasing large amounts of water can itself be a flood hazard, reminding us that dams offer finite protection. This was exemplified by the 1986 and 1989 Keystone Reservoir water releases that caused downstream flooding.
3.13.6 Sources Kuhnert, Nathan (Hydrologist Oklahoma Water Resources Board). Telephone interviews by Michael Flanagan, January 10, 22, 2002, March 18, 19, 2002.
Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, p. 254–261. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1997.
Oklahoma Strategic All-Hazards Mitigation Plan, “Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment,” p. 4. Oklahoma Department of Civil Emergency Management, September 2001.
Partners in Dam Safety, at Web address: http://www.fema.gov/mit/damsafe/partners.htm. FEMA, National Dam Safety Program, Dam Safety Progress Through Partnerships.
Rooftop To River: Tulsa’s Approach to Floodplain and Stormwater Management, “Setting and History: Learning the Hard Way,” p. 1–7 and at Web address: http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/articles/rooftop/index.shtml. City of Tulsa, 1994.
3–63
3.14 Levee Failures
A levee is an embankment or barrier of compacted soil designed to keep floodwaters away from buildings or other development. Levees are considered a “structural” flood control project, and are generally constructed to protect floodplain development. Until the late 1960s, structural measures such as levees were the dominant approach to riverine floodplain management. Currently, however, under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations, levees are not recognized as acceptable measures for protecting new, substantially improved, or substantially damaged structures.
3.14.1 Hazard Profile Levees and other structural measures are extremely costly and can disrupt or destroy the natural environment. Levees may also create a false sense of security, increasing the amount of property at risk of flooding as people and businesses locate behind levees and floodwalls. Platt (1982), for instance, described the experience of Jackson, Mississippi, where Arkansas River levees were threatened with failure and overtopping the Army Corps of Engineers in 1986 and 1989 had constructed levees in the 1960s to protect the town from flooding along the Pearl River. The levees were overtopped in the 1979 flood, with some 40% of the damage being inflicted on new construction behind the levee.
Levee failures or damages behind levees can result for several reasons:
· Overtopping due to flood heights exceeding levee design protection elevation · Flooding from upstream sources internal to the levee · Erosion caused by embankment leaking or piping · Improper operation and maintenance, including failure to inspect and repair seepage problems
3.14.2 Historical Events Floods have been recorded on the Arkansas River since before statehood. In May 1943, residents appealed to the County Commission to build levees to protect floodplain development along the Arkansas River west of Tulsa. The project was justified to protect vital war industries, such as the refineries in West Tulsa. The Corps-built levee was finished in 1945, and no major damage from the Arkansas River in West Tulsa or Sand
3–64
Springs has occurred since that time. Private levees have been built on the west side of the Arkansas River between 21st and 51st streets.
Although Tulsa area levees have not suffered major failure, properties protected by the levees have suffered flood damages from internal flooding in 1984, and levees were threatened with failure and overtopping in 1986 and 1989. The private levees on the west side of the Arkansas River protecting Garden City failed during the 1986 Arkansas River flooding.
A levee was completed around Jenks in 1949, protecting the city from floods from Polecat Creek as well as the Arkansas River.
3.14.3 Vulnerable Population The levees of concern for Tulsa are confined to the Arkansas River, on the north side, west of the downtown area, and on the west side, protecting the refineries and adjacent neighborhoods. These levees will overtop if Keystone Dam reaches a release rate of 450,000 cfs.
The Arkansas River levees, as shown on the map in Figure 3–6, are: the western levee, located in Sand Springs and Tulsa County; the eastern levee, located north of the river, primarily within the jurisdiction of the City of Tulsa; and the West Tulsa levee, within the Tulsa city limits, but also containing large unincorporated areas. These unincorporated areas, located in Tulsa County, contain oil refineries, oil tank storage farms, and railroad switching yards. For purposes of this study, the east and West Tulsa levees were selected for levee failure damage analysis.
This scenario removed due to sensitive nature of information.
For more information, contact information can be located on page xviii.
3–65 This page removed due to sensitive nature of information.
For more information, contact information can be located on page xviii.
These tables removed due to sensitive nature of information.
For more information, contact information can be located on page xviii.
3.14.5 Conclusion Failure of the levees along the Arkansas River will have a devastating impact upon the City of Tulsa and Tulsa County. The damage to people, property, and businesses will have a significant adverse impact upon the community.
3.14.6 Sources Engineering Design Report: Garden City Storm Drainage and Detention System, Wright Water Engineers, Inc., February 1987.
Water Management Analysis Report: Flood of September - October 1986, US Army Corps of Engineers, Southwestern Division, Tulsa District, August 1987.
Flow-Flooded Area Maps, Arkansas River, Keystone Dam to Tulsa County Line, Oklahoma, US Army Corps of Engineers, March 1989.
3–67
Chapter 4: Mitigation Strategies
Chapter 4: Mitigation Strategies
This chapter identifies the hazard mitigation goals set by the City of Tulsa and discusses the mitigation projects, or measures, to be taken to achieve those goals.
The Research, Review, and Prioritization Process The THMCAC and TSTAC identified and prioritized 68 measures that will help protect the lives and property of the citizens of Tulsa.
National literature and sources were researched to identify best practices mitigation measures for each hazard. These measures were documented, and staff screened several hundred recommended mitigation actions and selected those that were most appropriate for the Tulsa area.
The THMCAC reviewed the measures recommended by staff and revised, added, deleted, and approved measures for each hazard. The THMCAC and TSTAC ranked and prioritized the measures and grouped them into categories.
Mitigation Categories The measures that communities and individuals can use to protect themselves from, or mitigate the impacts of, natural and man-made hazards fall into six categories:
· Public Information and Education · Preventive Measures · Structural Projects · Property Protection · Emergency Services · Natural Resources Protection This chapter is organized by these
mitigation categories, with the Tulsa Tulsa’s natural hazard mitigation planning process mitigation mission statement and involves citizens in every phase goals listed first in section 4.1.
4–1 4.1 Tulsa Hazard Mitigation Goals
4.1.1 General Goals for all Natural Hazards · Minimize loss of life and property from natural hazard events. · Protect public health and safety. · Increase public awareness of risk from natural hazards. · Reduce risk and effects of natural hazards. · Identify hazards and assess risk for local area. · Ascertain historical incidence and frequency of occurrence. · Determine increased risk from specific hazards due to location and other factors. · Improve disaster prevention. · Improve forecasting of natural hazard events. · Limit building in high-risk areas. · Improve building construction to reduce the dangers of natural hazards. · Improve government and public response to natural hazard disasters. 4.1.2 Specific Goals for Particular Natural Hazards Floods · Identify buildings at risk from 100- and 500-year floods. · Buy properties that flood most frequently, clear the land, and put in green space or build detention ponds. · Inform residents who refuse to vacate the floodplain of floodproofing alternatives. · Limit additional building in flood zone areas. Tornadoes · Continue to improve tornado forecasting. · Increase building code standards to build stronger houses. · Build safe-rooms in new homes. High Winds · Institute measures that will improve resistance of new buildings to high winds. · Require better roof construction and materials to withstand high winds. · Identify homes and buildings vulnerable to loss from high winds, and suggest ways that their owners can prepare them for storms.
4–2 Lightning · Promote public awareness of lightning dangers and what can be done to prevent/reduce personal injury and property damage. · Encourage general public to put lightning rods on buildings to minimize destruction/damage.
Hailstorms · Encourage the use of hail-resistant composite materials in automobile manufacture. · Encourage insurance companies to offer premium incentives for purchase of affordable carports by people without garages. · Require better roof construction and materials to withstand hailstorms. Winter Storms · Place exposed power and telephone lines underground to prevent damage from ice loading. · Promote awareness of the advantages of all-wheel-drive cars with traction control. · Encourage use of all-weather tires on automobiles. · Convert electrically heated homes to gas. · Identify elderly and indigent citizens who are at risk from winter storms. · Encourage churches and community groups to assist persons at risk during power loss. · Develop emergency plans to provide shelter when power fails from winter storms. Extreme Heat · Publicize signs and dangers of heat stroke, especially among elderly. · Inform those at risk of preventive measures in advance of extreme heat wave. · Invite churches and community groups to provide inexpensive air conditioning for indigent elders to protect them from extreme heat. · Develop emergency plan for conserving electrical use during extreme heat. Drought · Promote awareness of importance and value of water. · Promote water-free landscaping. · Encourage water re-use or gray-water recycling for lawn irrigation. · Involve public in finding new ways to conserve water. Expansive Soils · Inform the public about the hazard of expansive soils. · Require Realtors to inform buyers of homes at risk from expansive soil.
4–3 · Encourage scientific/development community to find mitigation measures for expansive soils. Urban Fires · Identify neighborhoods especially vulnerable to fire. · Educate the public about the most common causes of urban fires. · Promote the use of fire-resistant materials in house construction. · Notify absent landlords whose property is at high risk of fire and encourage them to remedy the problem. Wildfires · Encourage fireproof materials in building construction. · Experiment with controlled burns of native vegetation to minimize the accumulation of forest fuels that lead to uncontrollable fires. · Advise public and developers of the danger of building homes in remote areas where fire protection is not available. · Alert homeowners when fire risk is great in rural and remote areas. Earthquakes · Investigate HAZUS to estimate earthquake damage in Tulsa area. · Inform public of earthquakes in areas where they are frequent but unrecognized. · Publicize and promote general awareness of earthquake emergency action plans. Hazardous Materials Events · Educate the public about the hazardous materials to which they are most frequently exposed. · Help homeowners identify hazardous materials from which they are at risk. · Locate “brown-fields” and hazardous material sites, and ensure preventive measures are in place to protect public. Dam Failures · Determine risk rating of dams affecting the Tulsa area. · Identify homes and businesses vulnerable to flooding from dam failure. · Ensure privately owned dams in the local area are complying with relevant inspection and maintenance codes.
4–4 4.2 Public Information and Education
A successful public information and education program involves both the public and private sectors. Public information and education activities advise and educate citizens, property owners, renters, businesses, and local officials about hazards and ways to protect people and property from them. Public information activities are among the least expensive mitigation measures, and at the same time are often the most effective thing a community can do to save lives and property. All mitigation activities—preventive, structural, property protection, emergency services, and natural resource protection— begin with public information and education.
4.2.1 Map Information Many benefits stem from making map information available to officials and the public. Residents and businesses that are aware of the potential hazards can take steps to avoid problems and reduce their exposure to those hazards that have a geographical distribution, such as flooding, dam failure or releases, expansive soils, and hazardous materials events. Real estate agents and homebuyers can find out if a property is flood- prone, and whether flood insurance may be required.
Maps provide a wealth of information about past and potential hazards. The City of Tulsa maintains maps in area libraries, provides popular map brochures, sends a general floodplain map to all citizens annually with their City utility bill, and each year mails flood hazard maps to all floodplain residents.
Flood Maps Several legal requirements are tied to FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), Flood Insurance Study, and Tulsa’s Regulatory Floodplain Maps. These include building regulations and Hazard maps, like this one showing the location of the the mandatory purchase of flood 100-year floodplain, are available from the City insurance. Tulsa provides floodplain and FIRM information as a mitigation service. The City helps residents submit requests for map amendments and revisions when these are needed to show that a building is outside the mapped floodplain.
Although Tulsa’s maps are extremely accurate, users and inquirers must remember that maps are not perfect. They display only the larger flood-prone areas that have been studied. In some areas, watershed developments make even recent maps outdated. Those inquiring about flood maps must be reminded that being outside the mapped floodplain is
4–5 no guarantee that a property will never flood. In fact, many properties that flood are not located in a designated floodplain.
Other Hazard Data Other data that can be shown on maps include those hazards that are distributed geographically. These include:
· Dam breach inundation areas · Levee failure inundation areas · Expansive soils · Wildfire risk zones · Earthquake risk zones · Hazardous materials sites · Wetlands
General location maps for many of these natural and man-made hazards have been developed by the City of Tulsa and INCOG through Project Impact, and are included in this Tulsa Hazard Mitigation Plan study.
Flood zone determinations are available, free of charge, to any citizen through the Department of Public Works. The various maps and outreach projects available to the public are discussed in Section 4.2.4.
4.2.2 Library The Tulsa City-County Library is a valuable resource for residents seeking information on hazards, hazard protection, and natural resource preservation. Historically, libraries have been the first place people go when beginning to research a topic, since libraries have a wealth of free information on matters of public interest and concern. Libraries also have their own public information campaigns with displays, lectures, and other programs, which can augment There are many references on hazard the activities of the local government. protection for property owners
The Tulsa City-County Library System maintains the flood related documents required under the NFIP/CRS. These are available at the Central Library, and some of the four regional branches.
4–6 4.2.3 Websites Today, web sites are becoming more popular as research tools, since they provide quick access to a wide range of public and private sites and sources of information. There is almost no limit to the amount of up-to-date information that can be accessed by the user.
Information on Tulsa’s floodplain management can be accessed at www.cityoftulsa.org. Go to the Public Works drop-down menu at
the top of the page and select Flood Web sites have become one of the most popular Control and Drainage. Also visit research tools www.tulsaprojectimpact.org.
4.2.4 Outreach Projects Mapping and library activities are of little use unless people know they are available. An outreach project can provide this initial information.
Outreach projects are usually the first step in orienting property owners to property protection issues and helping them seek out more information to protect themselves and their properties.
The most effective types of flood-oriented outreach projects are mailed or distributed to flood-prone property owners, or to everyone in the community. Other approaches include:
· Articles and special sections in newspapers · Radio and TV news releases and talk shows · Hazard protection video for cable TV programs or to loan to organizations · Presentations at meetings of neighborhood, civic or business groups · Displays in public buildings or shopping malls · Open houses for floodproofed buildings
Research has shown that outreach projects work. However, awareness that a hazard exists is not enough. People also need expert advice on what they can do about them. Consequently, outreach projects should include information on safety, health, and property protection measures. Research also indicates that a properly run local information program is more effective at achieving these objectives than national advertising or publicity campaigns.
4–7 The City of Tulsa has several outreach programs designed to inform citizens about floods and other hazards.
· The City of Tulsa Flood Safety and Insurance Fact Sheet is produced by Community Affairs and Planning, Department of Public Works. It is included annually in utility bills mailed to all 150,000 City utility accounts. · The City of Tulsa Official Notice: Flood Hazard Information is mailed annually prior to flood season to 8,575 owners and residents of buildings located in the FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area or the City of Tulsa’s Regulatory Floodplains. · A General Guide to Regulatory Floodplains, which includes a large color map of Tulsa’s floodplains and other An outreach project mailer sent to flood-prone property owners and residents each year important hazard-related information, is distributed through City Hall information racks, at public meetings, the Tulsa Home and Garden Show, the Tulsa State Fair, and Tulsa Project Impact/Citizen Corps events. · Copies of the Regulatory Floodplain Map Atlas, a 25-panel book showing the floodplains and individual parcels, are available from the Department of Public Works.
4.2.5 Technical Assistance While general information helps, most property owners are not prepared to take major steps, like retrofitting their buildings, without expert guidance. Public Works staff can provide free advice and help steer the owner onto the right track.
Technical assistance can be provided in one-on-one sessions with property owners, or through seminars. Seminars or “open houses,” for instance, can focus on retrofitting structures, selecting qualified contractors, and carrying out preparedness activities.
The Department of Public Works offers technical assistance on development, building, flooding, flood determination, erosion control, or protection measures. Public Works maintains a log of flood protection assistance it has provided.
4–8 4.2.6 Real Estate Disclosure After a flood or other natural disaster, people often say they would have taken steps to protect themselves if they had known their property was exposed to a hazard.
Flood insurance is required for buildings located within the base floodplain if the mortgage or loan is federally insured. However, because this
requirement has to be Flooding and other hazards are sometimes not disclosed until it’s too met only ten days before late. Hazard maps can help home buyers avoid surprises like this closing, applicants are often already committed to purchasing a property when they first learn of the flood hazard. To help counter this shortcoming, the City’s map information service, described in Section 4.2.1, is widely publicized among real estate agencies and lenders.
4.2.7 Educational Programs A community’s most important natural resource is its children. They will inherit the resources, infrastructure and development built by earlier generations at great cost and effort. They will also face the same natural forces that bring floods, tornadoes, storms and other hazards.
Environmental education programs can teach children about natural hazards, the forces that cause them, and the importance of protecting people, property and nature, such as watersheds and floodplains. Educational programs can be undertaken by schools, park and recreation departments, conservation associations, and youth organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, Campfire Girls and summer camps. An activity can be complex enough as to require course curriculum development, or as simple as an explanatory sign near a river.
Educational programs designed for children often reach adults as well. Parents often learn innovative concepts or new ideas from their children. If a child comes home from school with an assignment in water quality monitoring, the parents will normally become interested in finding out about it as well.
There are many programs that provide information and curriculum materials on nature and natural hazards. These include Web sites (“FEMA for Kids,” and the USGS “Water Science for Schools”), posters, coloring books, games, and references. These items, as
4–9 well as hands-on models that allow students to see the effects of different land use practices, are also available through the local natural resources conservation district.
4.2.8 Public Information Program Strategy After reviewing existing and possible public information activities, the THMCAC prepared a Public Information Program Strategy using the Community Rating System format. The strategy consists of the following parts:
a. The local hazard (discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 of this plan) b. Safety and property protection measures appropriate for the hazards (discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 and on the next page) c. Flood-related public information activities currently being implemented within the community, including those by non-government agencies (discussed in Sections 4.2.1 to 4.2.7) d. Goals for the community’s public information program (covered in Chapter 4) e. Outreach projects that will reach the goals (see Chapter Summer camps, and other educational programs for 5, action items 2b, 6d, 8, children, can teach a new generation about nature, natural and Table 5-1.) hazards, and preservation f. A process for monitoring and evaluating the projects (see Chapter 6)
4.2.9 Conclusions 1. There are many ways public information programs can be used to make people and businesses more aware of the hazards they face and how they can protect themselves. 2. Most public information activities can be used to advise people about all hazards, not just floods. 3. Some public information activities require coordination with other organizations, such as schools and real estate agents. 4. There are several area organizations that can provide support for public information and educational programs.
4–10 4.2.10 Recommendations The following table lists recommended public information and education activities. They are listed in priority order, as recommended by the THMCAC. Refer to “Chapter 5: Action Plan,” Table 5–1, for a complete listing of all recommended mitigation measures by hazard and priority.
Table 4–1: Recommended Mitigation Activities for Public Information and Education
Priority Hazard Mitigation Measure
2 Extreme Heat Obtain funding for distribution of public information and education materials to vulnerable populations through participating community agencies. 8 General Examine optimum methods of achieving public information and education objectives concerning tornadoes, high winds, lightning, winter storms, extreme heat, fire, Hazmat events, expansive soils, and wise use of water resources. 28 Lightning Educate the community about proper lightning safety through public service announcements and other media outlets. 37 General Contact agencies that distribute information to at-risk communities, such as the elderly, infirm, poor, and outside workers. 41 Tornadoes and Safe room rebates for low income and vulnerable populations. high winds 43 Floods and Educate the public on what the multi-sound sirens mean in the tornadoes Tulsa area. 48 Lightning Provide educational demonstrations on whole-house surge protection technology. 54 Urban fires and Develop a public education project addressing the advantages of wildfires individual fire suppression in residences. 57 Urban fires and Continue education, and get funding to further inform people on wildfires evacuation plans for City offices, businesses and residential homes. 63 General Translate current public information into other languages. 66 Lightning Encourage utilities to provide lightning prevention information materials and programs to their customers.
4–11 Figure 4–1: Public Service Notice for Flooding
Flood Safety
· Do not walk through flowing water. Drowning is the number one cause of flood deaths. Currents can be deceptive; six inches of moving water can knock you off your feet. Use a pole or stick to ensure that the ground is still there before you go through an area where the water is not flowing.
· Do not drive through a flooded area. More people drown in their cars than anywhere else. Don't drive around road barriers; the road or bridge may be washed out.
· Stay away from power lines and electrical wires. The number two flood killer, after drowning, is electrocution. Electrical current can travel through water. Report downed power lines to the Mayor’s Action Line, 596-2100.
· Look out for animals that have been flooded out of their homes and which may have sought shelter in yours. Use a pole or stick to poke and turn things over and scare away small animals.
· Look before you step. After a flood, the ground and floors are covered with debris, including broken bottles and nails. Floors and stairs that have been covered with mud can be very slippery.
· Be alert for gas leaks. Use a flashlight to inspect for damage. Don't smoke or use candles, lanterns, or open flames unless you know the gas has been turned off and the area has been ventilated.
· Carbon monoxide exhaust kills. Use a generator or other gasoline-powered machine outdoors. The same goes for camping stoves. Charcoal fumes are especially deadly. Cook with charcoal only outdoors.
· Clean everything that got wet. Flood waters pick up sewage and chemicals from roads, farms, factories, and storage buildings. Spoiled food, flooded cosmetics, and medicine can be health hazards. When in doubt, throw them out.
· Take good care of yourself. Recovering from a flood is a big job. It is tough on both the body and the spirit, and the effects of a disaster on you and your family may last a long time.
4–12 4.3 Preventive Measures
Preventive activities are designed to keep certain conditions from occurring or getting worse. The objective is to ensure that new development does not make an existing hazard worse, or increase damage or loss of life. Preventive measures are usually administered by building, zoning, planning, and code enforcement offices. They typically include planning, zoning, open space preservation, building codes, drainage criteria, master drainage plans, floodplain development regulations, and stormwater management. Preventive measures will be discussed in the following order:
4.3.1 Planning 4.3.2 Zoning 4.3.3 Open Space Preservation 4.3.4 Building Codes 4.3.5 Floodplain Development Regulations 4.3.6 Stormwater Management
The first three measures (planning, zoning, and open space preservation) work to keep damage- prone development out of hazardous or sensitive areas.
The next two measures (building codes and floodplain development regulations) impose standards on what is allowed to be built in the floodplain. These protect buildings, roads, and other facilities from flood damage and prevent the new development from making any existing Tulsa’s mitigation planning process flood problem worse. Building codes are also involves meetings with civic groups and critical to mitigating the impact of non-flood local citizens, as well as decision- hazards on new buildings. making councils and commissions
Stormwater management addresses the runoff of stormwater from new developments onto other properties and into floodplains.
4.3.1 Planning “Planning” can cover a variety of community plans including, but not limited to, comprehensive plans, land use plans, transportation plans, and economic development plans. While plans generally have limited authority, they reflect what the community wants to see happen in the future. Plans also guide other local activities such as capital improvements and the development of ordinances.
4–13 4.3.2 Zoning Tulsa’s zoning ordinances regulate development by dividing the community into zones or districts, and establishing development criteria for each. Zoning ordinances are considered the primary tool for implementing a comprehensive plan’s guidelines for how land should be developed.
4.3.3 Open Space Preservation Keeping the floodplain open and free from development is the best approach to preventing flood damage. Floodplains, wetlands, and natural water ponding areas maintain the existing stormwater storage capacities of a watershed. These sites can also serve as recreational areas, greenway corridors, and habitat for local flora and fauna. Besides being preserved in its natural condition, open space can be maintained as a park, golf course, or put to agricultural use.
4.3.4 Building Codes Hazard protection standards for all new or improved structures can be incorporated into the local building code. For example, these standards should include criteria to ensure that the foundation will withstand flood forces, and that all portions of the building subject to damage are above, or otherwise protected from, flooding.
Building codes are also a prime mitigation measure for other natural hazards, like earthquakes, tornadoes, windstorms, and severe heat and cold. When designed and constructed according to code, the average building can withstand the impacts of most of these forces. A building code would typically include such provisions as:
· Requiring sprinkler systems for fire protection in larger or public buildings · Regulating overhanging masonry elements that could fall during an earthquake · Ensuring that foundations can withstand earthquake movements, and that all structural elements are properly connected to the foundation · Ensuring roof systems can handle high winds and expected snow loads 4.3.5 Floodplain Development Regulations Most communities with a flood problem participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The NFIP sets minimum requirements for subdivision regulations and building codes. These are usually spelled out in a separate ordinance.
Experience has shown that the NFIP's minimum standard is insufficient for developing urban communities, such as Tulsa. The City's regulations exceed the NFIP’s minimum national standards in several important ways.
4–14 Minimum National Flood Insurance Program Regulatory Requirements
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). As a condition of making flood insurance available for their residents, communities that participate in the NFIP agree to regulate new construction in areas subject to inundation by the 100-year (base) flood.
There are four major floodplain regulatory requirements. Additional floodplain regulatory requirements may be set by state and local law. 1. All development in the 100-year floodplain must have a permit from the community. The NFIP regulations define “development” as any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations, or storage of equipment or materials. 2. Development should not be allowed in the floodway. The NFIP regulations define the floodway as the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. The floodway is usually the most hazardous area of a riverine floodplain and the most sensitive to development. At a minimum, no development in the floodway may cause an obstruction to flood flows. Generally an engineering study must be performed to determine whether an obstruction will be created. 3. New buildings may be built in the floodplain, but they must be protected from damage by the base flood. In riverine floodplains, the lowest floor of residential buildings must be elevated to or above the base flood elevation (BFE). Nonresidential buildings must be either elevated or floodproofed. 4. Under the NFIP, a “substantially improved” building is treated as a new building. The NFIP regulations define “substantial improvement” as any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the start of construction of the improvement. This requirement also applies to buildings that are substantially damaged.
Communities are encouraged to adopt local ordinances that are more comprehensive or provide more protection than the state or federal criteria. This is especially important in areas with older Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that may not reflect the current hazard. Such ordinances could include prohibiting certain types of highly damage-prone uses from the floodway, or requiring that structures be elevated 1 or more feet above the BFE. The NFIP’s Community Rating System provides insurance premium credits in order to recognize the additional flood protection benefit of higher regulatory standards.
Subdivision regulations govern how land will be subdivided into individual lots, and set the construction and location standards for the infrastructure a developer builds to serve those lots, including roads, sidewalks, utility lines, storm sewers, and drainageways. Subdivision regulations provide an additional vehicle for floodplain development rules. For example, some communities require that every subdivision in a floodplain provide a building site above the flood level for each lot, and/or require streets to be at or no more than one foot below the base flood elevation.
4–15 Floodplains are only one aspect of flood management. Water gathers and drains throughout entire watersheds, from uplands to lowlands. Each watershed is an interactive element of the whole. A change at one place can cause changes elsewhere, whether planned or inadvertent. Tulsa’s current Master Drainage Planning program considers the entire watershed in its hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, mapping, and regulation.
4.3.6 Stormwater Management Development outside a floodplain can contribute significantly to flooding problems, since runoff is increased whenever natural ground cover is replaced by urban development.
As watersheds develop, runoff usually becomes deeper and faster and floods become more frequent. To prevent stormwater from flooding roads and buildings, developers construct storm sewers and improve ditches to carry the water away more efficiently. Water that once lingered in hollows, meandered around oxbows, and soaked into the ground, now speeds downhill, shoots through pipes, and sheets off rooftops and paving.
Insurance purposes require that NFIP floodplain maps be based on existing watershed development. However, unless plans and regulations are based on future watershed urbanization, development permitted today may flood tomorrow, when uphill urbanization increases runoff.
This combination of increased runoff and more efficient stormwater channels increases downstream storm peaks and changes the timing when storm peaks move downstream. Unconstrained watershed development will often overload a community's In addition to detention facilities, Tulsa’s stormwater management program envisions restoring some channelized streams with meanders drainage system and and native vegetation to slow runoff and prevent flash flooding aggravate downstream flooding.
A second stormwater problem is its impact on water quality. Runoff from developed areas picks up pollutants on the ground, such as road oil and lawn chemicals, and carries them into the receiving streams.
Tulsa enforces the NFIP minimum regulations and maps, in order to maintain eligibility for federal flood insurance. The City also enforces its own more restrictive regulations.
4–16 Retention / Detention Tulsa’s stormwater management regulations require developers to build retention or detention basins to minimize the increases in the runoff rate caused by impervious surfaces and new drainage systems. Generally, each development must not let stormwater leave at a higher rate than under pre-development conditions.
The Community Rating System (CRS) uses three factors to measure the impact of stormwater management regulations on downstream flooding:
1. What developments are required to account for their runoff? If only larger subdivisions have to detain the increased runoff, the regulations can miss the cumulative effect of many small projects, which can add up to greater flows to downstream properties. 2. How much water is managed? Historically, local stormwater management programs address smaller storms, such as the 2- or 10-year storms. The CRS reflects the growing realization nationally that runoff from larger storms must be managed. It provides full credit only for programs that address all storms up to the 100-year storm. 3. Who is responsible for ensuring that stormwater facilities work over the long term? Roads and sewers are located on dedicated public rights-of-way, and the community assumes the job of maintaining them in the future. Stormwater management detention basins, however, have traditionally stayed on Stormwater detention ponds manage the increased runoff from private property and new developments and temporarily store flood waters maintenance has been left up to the owner. Often homeowners associations have neither the knowledge nor capability to properly maintain these facilities. Half the CRS credit is based on whether the community assumes responsibility for ensuring that the facilities are maintained.
Watershed Approaches The standard regulatory approach that requires each development to manage stormwater to the same criteria has several shortcomings:
1. It does not account for differences in stream and watershed conditions (although the standards can be revised to reflect findings from watershed studies).
4–17 2. Municipalities within the same watershed may require different levels of stormwater control. 3. There is no review of the downstream impacts from runoff, or any determination of whether the usual standards will compound existing flooding problems. 4. It results in many small basins on private property that may or may not be properly maintained.
The way to correct these deficiencies is to conduct a master study of the watershed to determine the appropriate standards for different areas and, sometimes, to identify where a larger central basin would be more effective and efficient than many smaller ones. The CRS provides up to double the stormwater management regulations credit if communities adopt such master plans.
4.3.7 Conclusions 1. Planning and zoning help Tulsa develop the community proactively, so that the resulting infrastructure is laid out in a coherent and safe manner. 2. Building codes for foundations, sprinkler systems, masonry, and structural elements such as roofs are prime mitigation measures for floods, tornadoes, high winds, extreme heat and cold, and earthquakes. 3. Tulsa participates in the NFIP and uses subdivision regulations to control floodplain development. 4. Deficiencies in stormwater management can be corrected by conducting a master study of watersheds to determine appropriate standards for different areas.
4.3.8 Recommendations The following table lists recommended preventive measures, prioritized by the THMCAC. Refer to “Chapter 5: Action Plan,” Table 5–1, for a complete listing of all recommended mitigation measures by hazard and priority.
Table 4–2: Recommended Mitigation Activities for Preventive Measures
Priority Hazard Mitigation Measure
1 Dam failures Develop GIS (digitized) mapping program for results of Arkansas and releases River’s Keystone Dam release rates of 250, 350, and 450 thousand cubic feet per second. 3 Hazardous Continue the City’s Household Pollutant Collection program, and materials events build a year-round collection site. 5 Expansive soils Investigate codes/incentives for the construction of new foundations to avoid expansive soil problems. 11 General Update GIS to include public utility infrastructure. 13 Winter storms Continue the City’s aggressive snow and ice removal plan.
4–18 Priority Hazard Mitigation Measure
14 Earthquakes Building reinforcements against wind and tornado damage will also protect against the minor earthquakes projected for the Tulsa area. 15 General Review and update the Debris Management Plan. 16 Dam failures Develop pre- and post-flood plans for the Arkansas River and releases floodplain, including the areas behind the levees. 17 Levee failures Re-evaluate and update the master drainage plans for areas behind (protected by) the levees. 18 Tornadoes and Investigate building codes/incentives for adequacy for tornadoes high winds and high winds. 29 Lightning Study other communities that have lightning warning systems. 30 Winter storms Provide for routine trimming of trees to reduce power outages during storms. 32 Hazardous Update the study for routing of hazardous materials through the materials events Tulsa area. 35 Floods Continue to update and revise basin-wide master drainage plans where changed conditions warrant. 38 Urban fires and Apply for mitigation funding for backflow values for commercial, wildfires industrial, and multi-family buildings. 39 Urban fires and Continue fire department’s smoke detector program. wildfires 40 Tornadoes and Investigate community tornado shelter programs implemented in high winds other cities or states. 45 General Compile daytime population maps for the Tulsa community. 46 Dam failures Assemble facts about the Keystone Dam capacity, release rates and releases and timing. 56 Urban fires and Evaluate fire protection and prevention for animals, employees, wildfires and visitors to Tulsa Zoo. 60 Drought Develop and implement plans to determine when a drought begins and ends. 64 Extreme heat Review and update Tulsa’s heat response plan. 65 Drought Continue Tulsa’s “Wise Use of Water” program.
4–19 4.4 Structural Projects
Structural projects are usually designed by engineers or architects, constructed by the public sector, and maintained and managed by governmental entities. Structural projects traditionally include stormwater detention reservoirs, levees and floodwalls, channel modifications, drainage and storm sewer improvements, and community tornado safe- rooms.
4.4.1 Reservoirs and Detention Reservoirs control flooding by holding high flows behind dams or in storage basins. After a flood peaks, water is released or pumped out slowly at a rate that the river can accommodate downstream. The lake created may provide recreational benefits or water supply (which could help mitigate a drought).
Reservoirs are suitable for protecting existing development downstream from the project site. Unlike levees and channel modifications, they do not have to be built close to or disrupt the area to be protected. Reservoirs are most efficient in deeper valleys where there is more room to store water, or on smaller rivers where there is less water to store. Building a reservoir in flat areas and on large rivers may not be cost-effective, because large areas Tulsa’s multi-objective detention ponds also serve as of land have to be purchased. community park, recreation and open space facilities
In urban areas, some reservoirs are simply man-made holes dug to store floodwaters. Some communities have reduced costs by using abandoned quarries as reservoirs. When built in the ground, there is no dam for these retention and detention basins and no dam failure hazard. Wet or dry basins can also serve multiple uses by doubling as parks or other open spaces.
4.4.2 Levees and Floodwalls Probably the best known flood control measure is a barrier of earth (levee) or concrete (floodwall) erected between the watercourse and the property to be protected. Levees and floodwalls confine water to the stream channel by raising its banks. They must be well designed to account for large floods, underground seepage, pumping of internal drainage, erosion, and scour.
Levees placed along a river or stream edge degrade the aquatic habitat and water quality of the stream. They also are more likely to push floodwater onto other properties
4–20 upstream or downstream. To reduce environmental impacts and provide multiple use benefits, a setback levee (set back from the floodway) is usually the best project design. The area inside a setback levee can serve as open space for recreational purposes and provide access sites to the river or stream.
4.4.3 Channel Improvements By improving channel conveyance, more water can be carried away at a faster rate. Improvements generally include making a channel wider, deeper, smoother or straighter. Some smaller channels in urban areas have been lined with concrete or put in underground pipes.
4.4.4 Crossings and Roadways In some cases buildings may be elevated above floodwaters but access to them is lost when floodwaters overtop local roadways, driveways, and culverts or ditches. Depending on the recurrence interval between floods, the availability of alternative access, and the level of need for access, it may be economically justifiable to elevate some roadways and improve crossing points.
For example, if there is sufficient downstream channel capacity, a small culvert that constricts flows and causes localized backwater flooding may be replaced with a larger culvert to eliminate flooding at the waterway crossing point. The potential for worsening adjacent or downstream flooding needs to be considered before implementing any crossing or roadway drainage improvements.
4.4.5 Drainage and Storm Sewer Improvements Man-made ditches and storm sewers help drain areas where the surface drainage system is inadequate, or where underground drainageways may be safer or more practical. Storm sewer improvements include installing new sewers, enlarging small pipes, and preventing back flows. Particularly appropriate for depressions and low spots that will not drain naturally, drainage and storm sewer improvements usually are designed to carry the runoff from smaller, more frequent storms.
Because drainage ditches and storm sewers convey water faster to other locations, improvements are only recommended for small local problems where Tulsa is constantly improving its stormwater drainage infrastructure, as the receiving stream or river has sufficient capacity here on Mooser Creek to handle the additional volume and flow of water. To reduce the cumulative downstream flood impacts of numerous small drainage projects, additional detention or run-off reduction practices should be provided in conjunction with the drainage system improvements.
4–21 4.4.6 Drainage System Maintenance The drainage system may include detention ponds, stream channels, swales, ditches and culverts. Drainage system maintenance is an ongoing program to clean out blockages caused by an accumulation of sediment or overgrowth of weedy, non-native vegetation or debris, and remediation of stream bank erosion sites.
“Debris” refers to a wide range of blockage materials that may include tree limbs and branches that accumulate naturally, or large items of trash or lawn waste accidentally or intentionally dumped into channels, drainage swales or detention basins. Maintenance of detention ponds may also require revegetation or repairs of the restrictor pipe, berm or overflow structure.
Maintenance activities normally do not alter the shape of the channel or pond, but they do affect how well the drainage system can do its job. Drainageways are inspected regularly Sometimes it is a very fine line that separates for blockage from debris debris that should be removed from natural material that helps form habitat.
4.4.7 Conclusions 1. Reservoirs can hold high flows of water that can later be released slowly or retained for recreational purposes or drought mitigation. 2. Levees and floodwalls are not as effective overall because of possible underground seepage, erosion, degradation of aquatic habitat and water quality, and ineffectiveness in large floods. 3. Channel improvements allow more water to be carried away faster. 4. The effectiveness of elevating buildings depends on the availability of alternative access when flooding occurs. 5. Crossing and roadway drainage improvements must take into account additional detention or run-off reduction. 6. Drainage and storm sewer improvements carry runoff from smaller, more frequent storms. 5. Drainage system maintenance is an ongoing project of removing debris that decreases the effectiveness of detention ponds, channels, ditches, and culverts.
4–22 4.4.8 Recommendations The following table lists recommended structural projects, as prioritized by the THMCAC. Refer to “Chapter 5: Action Plan,” Table 5–1, for a complete listing of all recommended mitigation measures by hazard and priority.
Table 4–3: Recommended Mitigation Activities for Structural Projects
Priority Hazard Mitigation Measure
4 Drought Build a third flow line to the Hudson Lake reservoir for additional water supply by 2020. 12 Drought Tie the Oologah and Spavinaw systems together at the Bird Creek Station. 19 Tornadoes and Provide mobile home community shelters/safe rooms. high winds 21 Urban fires and Continue replacing inadequately sized water lines with lines of wildfires sufficient size to provide proper fire protection to annexed and existing areas. 22 Tornadoes and Provide employee shelters at critical facilities, such as 911 high winds Center (priority 1), two fire stations (priority 2), and the remainder of fire stations. 23 Tornadoes and Provide group safe rooms at City Recreation Centers. high winds 25 Levee failures Continue work on checking, monitoring, and replacing existing levees. 31 Winter storms Reduce the number of overhead power lines by moving existing and new lines below ground. 33 Tornadoes and Provide safe rooms in fire and police stations. high winds 34 Tornadoes and Perform tornado and high wind evaluations of Tulsa schools to high winds determine the best ways to retrofit or remodel buildings to make them more disaster resistant. 36 Dam failures Update US Army Corps of Engineers hydrology and hydraulics and releases for the Arkansas River and Keystone Dam. 47 Levee failures Study and develop a plan to address levee damage in Tulsa. 50 Tornadoes and Begin a revolving fund for families to build safe rooms. high winds
4–23 4.5 Property Protection
Property protection measures are used to modify buildings or property subject to damage from various hazardous events. Property protection measures are normally implemented by the property owner. However, in many cases technical and financial assistance can be provided by a governmental agency. Property protection measures typically include acquisition and relocation, flood-proofing, building elevation, barriers, retrofitting, safe rooms, hail resistant roofing, insurance, and the like.
4.5.1 Acquisition and Relocation Moving out of harm’s way is the surest and safest way to protect a building from damage. Acquiring buildings and removing them is also a way to convert a problem area into a community asset and obtain environmental benefits.
The major difference between the two approaches is that acquisition is undertaken by a government agency, so the cost is not borne by the property
owner, and the land is converted to public Moving a home out of the floodplain is sometimes the use, such as a park. Relocation can be only way to protect it from flooding either government or owner-financed.
While almost any building can be moved, the cost goes up for heavier structures, such as those with exterior brick and stone walls, and for large or irregularly shaped buildings. However, experienced building movers know how to handle any job.
Cost An acquisition budget should be based on the median price of similar properties in the community, plus $10,000 to $20,000 for appraisals, abstracts, title opinions, relocation benefits, and demolition. Costs may be lower after a flood or other disaster. For example, the community may have to pay only the difference between the full price of a property and the amount of the flood insurance claim received by the owner.
One problem that sometimes results from an acquisition project is a “checkerboard” pattern in which nonadjacent properties are acquired. This can occur when some owners, especially those who have and prefer a waterfront location, prove reluctant to leave. Creating such an acquisition pattern in a community simply adds to the maintenance costs that taxpayers must support.
Relocation can be expensive, with costs ranging from $30,000 for a small wood frame building to over $60,000 for masonry and slab on grade buildings. Two story houses are more expensive to move because of the need to relocate wires and avoid overpasses. Additional costs may be necessary for acquiring a new lot on which to place the relocated
4–24 building and for restoring the old site. Larger buildings may have to be cut and the parts moved separately. Because of all these complications, there are cases where acquisition and demolition is less expensive than relocation.
Where Appropriate Acquisition and relocation are appropriate in areas subject to:
· Flash flooding · Deep waters · Dam break flooding · Landslides · Potential hazardous materials spills · Other high hazard that affects a specific area
Acquisition and relocation are not appropriate for some hazards such as tornadoes and winter storms because there are no areas safe from the hazard. Relocation is also preferred when structures are on large lots with buildable locations outside the hazardous area, or where the owner has a new lot in a safer area.
Acquisition (followed by demolition) is preferred over relocation for buildings that are difficult to move, such as larger, slab foundation, or masonry structures, and for dilapidated structures that are not worth preserving.
4.5.2 Building Elevation Raising a building above the flood level is the best on-site property protection method for flooding. Water flows under the building, causing little or no damage to the structure or its contents. Alternatives are to elevate on continuous foundation walls (creating an enclosed space below the building) or elevation on compacted earthen fill.
4.5.3 Barriers Barriers keep surface waters from reaching a building. A barrier can be built of dirt or soil (“berm”), or concrete or steel (“floodwall”). In cases of shallow flooding, regrading a yard can provide the same protection as a separate barrier.
4.5.4 Retrofitting This term covers a variety of techniques for modifying a building to reduce its susceptibility to damage by one or more hazards.
Where Appropriate Some of the more common approaches are:
4–25 Floods and Dam Failures · Dry floodproofing (making walls watertight so floodwaters cannot get inside) · Wet floodproofing (letting the water in and removing everything that could be damaged by a flood) · Installing drain plugs, standpipes or backflow valves to stop sewer backup
Tornado · Constructing an underground shelter or in-building “safe room” · Securing roofs, walls and foundations with adequate fasteners or tie downs · Strengthening garage doors and other large openings
High Winds · Installing storm shutters and storm windows · Burying utility lines · Installing/incorporating backup power supplies
Hailstorms · Installing hail resistant roofing materials
Lightning · Installing lightning rods and lightning surge interrupters · Burying utility lines · Installing/incorporating backup power supplies Tulsa uses FEMA guides to help homeowners retrofit their flood-prone Winter Storms properties · Adding insulation · Relocating water lines from outside walls to interior spaces · Sealing windows · Burying utility lines · Installing/incorporating backup power supplies
Extreme Heat and Drought · Adding insulation · Installing water saver appliances, such as shower heads and toilets
4–26 Urban and Wild Fires · Replacing wood shingles with fire resistant roofing · Adding spark arrestors on chimneys · Landscaping to keep bushes and trees away from structures · Installing sprinkler systems · Installing smoke alarms
Earthquake · Retrofitting structures to better withstand shaking · Tying down appliances, water heaters, bookcases and fragile furniture so they won’t fall over during an earthquake
Common Measures From the above lists, it can be seen that certain approaches can help protect from more than one hazard. These include:
· Strengthening roofs and walls to protect from wind and earthquake forces · Bolting or tying walls to the foundation to protect from wind and earthquake forces and the effects of buoyancy during a flood · Adding insulation to protect for extreme heat and cold · Anchoring water heaters and tanks to protect from ground shaking and flotation · Burying utility lines to protect from wind, ice and snow · Installing backup power systems for power losses during storms · Installing roofing that is hail resistant and fireproof
4.5.5 Insurance Insurance has the advantage that, as long as the policy is in force, the property is protected and no human intervention is needed for the measure to work. There are three types of insurance coverage:
1. The standard homeowner’s dwelling and commercial insurance policies cover against the perils of wildfire and the effects of severe weather, such as frozen water pipes. 2. Many companies sell earthquake insurance as an additional peril rider on homeowner’s policies. Individual policies can be written for large commercial properties. Rates and deductibles vary depending on the potential risk and the nature of the insured properties. 3. Flood insurance is provided under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
4–27 Flood Insurance Although most homeowner’s insurance policies do not cover a property for flood damage, an owner can insure a building against surface flooding through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Flood insurance coverage is provided for buildings and their contents damaged by a “general condition of surface flooding” in the area.
Building coverage is for the structure. Contents coverage is for the removable items inside an insurable building. A renter can take out a policy with contents coverage, even if there is no structural coverage.
Some people have purchased flood insurance because it was required by the bank when they got a mortgage or home improvement loan. Usually these policies just cover the building’s structure and not the contents.
In most cases, a 30-day waiting period follows the purchase of a flood insurance policy before it goes into effect. The objective of this waiting period is to encourage people to keep a policy at all times. People ought not to wait for the river to rise before they buy NFIP Coordinator Dianna Herrera presenting a class on flood insurance requirements their coverage.
4.5.6 The City’s Role Property protection measures are usually considered the responsibility of the property owner. However, the City should be involved in all strategies that can reduce losses from natural hazards, especially acquisition. There are various roles the City can play in encouraging and supporting implementation of these measures.
Providing basic information to property owners is the first step in supporting property protection measures. Owners need general information on what can be done to protect their lives and their assets. They need to see examples, preferably from nearby.
Financial Assistance Communities can help owners by helping to pay for a retrofitting project, just like they pay for flood control projects. Financial assistance can range from full funding of a project to helping residents find money from other programs. Some communities assume responsibility for sewer backups and other flood problems that arise from an inadequate public sewer or drain system.
Less expensive community programs include low interest loans, forgivable low interest loans, and rebates. A forgivable loan is one that does not need to be repaid if the owner does not sell the house for a specified period, such as five years. These approaches don’t fully fund the project but they cost the community treasury less and they increase the owner’s commitment to the flood protection project.
4–28 Often, small amounts of money act as a catalyst to pique the owner’s interest in getting a self-protection project moving. Several Chicago suburbs have active rebate programs that fund only 20% or 25% of the total cost of a retrofitting project. These programs have helped install hundreds of measures that protect buildings from low flood hazards.
Acquisition Agent The City has been the focal point for many acquisition projects. In most cases, the City is the ultimate owner of the property, but in other cases the school district or other public agency can assume ownership and the attendant maintenance responsibilities.
Other Incentives Sometimes only a little funding is needed to motivate a property owner to implement a retrofitting project, such as reducing a flood insurance premium if a building is elevated above the flood level. The reduction will not take much of a bite out of the cost of the project, but it reassures the owner that he or she is doing the right thing. Other forms of floodproofing may not be reflected in the flood insurance rates for residential properties, but they can help with the Community Rating System, which will, in turn, reduce the premiums of everyone’s flood policies.
Other incentives to consider are programs to help owners calculate the benefits and costs of a project, and a “seal of approval” for retrofitted buildings. The latter would be given following an inspection that confirms that the building meets certain standards. There are many other personal but non-economic incentives to protect a property from flood damage, such as peace of mind and increased value at property resale.
4.5.7 Conclusions 1. Acquisition and relocation of property is the most effective measure for property protection when hazards are expected to occur repeatedly in the same locations. Acquisition followed by demolition is preferable. 2. Other methods of property protection for flooding include raising building elevations and constructing berms and floodwalls. 3. Building modifications or retrofits are appropriate for some hazards. 4. Property insurance has the advantage of protecting the property without human intervention. 5. The City can help reduce losses from natural hazards by providing financial assistance, having an acquisition program, and other incentives.
4–29 4.5.8 Recommendations The following table lists recommended property protection measures, as prioritized by the THMCAC. Refer to “Chapter 5: Action Plan,” Table 5–1, for a complete listing of all recommended mitigation measures by hazard and priority.
Table 4–4: Recommended Mitigation Activities for Property Protection
Priority Hazard Mitigation Measure
6 Floods Implement structural and non-structural flood mitigation measures for flood-prone properties, as recommended in the basin-wide master drainage plans. 7 Floods Acquire and remove Repetitive Loss Properties and repeatedly flooded properties where City plans identify acquisition to be the most cost effective and desirable mitigation measure. 27 Lightning Provide surge protection for computer-reliant critical facilities, e.g., 911 Center, Emergency Operations Center, police stations, fire stations, and so on. 53 Hailstorms Provide hail resistant roofing for City buildings. 55 Urban fires and Fund a fire suppression pilot project for single-family residences wildfires in a publicly funded development in the Lacy Park area. 61 Tornadoes and Provide damage-resistant glass replacements for City Hall. high winds 62 General Provide security and surveillance equipment for police and fire stations.
4–30 4.6 Emergency Services
Emergency services measures protect people during and after a hazard event. Locally, these are coordinated by the Tulsa Area Emergency Management Agency (TAEMA), and include preparedness, threat recognition, warning, response, critical facilities protection, and post-disaster recovery and mitigation.
4.6.1 Threat Recognition Threat recognition is the key. The first step in responding to a flood, tornado, storm or other natural hazard is to know that one is coming. Without a proper and timely threat recognition system, adequate warnings cannot be disseminated.
Floods A flood threat recognition system provides early warning to emergency managers. A good system will predict the time and height of the flood crest. This can be done by measuring rainfall, soil moisture, and stream flows upstream of the community and calculating the subsequent flood levels.
On larger rivers, including the Arkansas, the measuring and calculating is done by the National Weather Service, which is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Flood threat predictions are disseminated on the NOAA Weather Wire or NOAA Weather Radio. NOAA Weather Radio is considered by the federal government A flood warning sign on Mill Creek. to be the official source for weather information.
The National Weather Service issues notices to the public, using two levels of notification:
Flood Watch: conditions are right for flooding Flood Warning: a flood has started or is expected to occur
On smaller rivers, local rainfall and river gages are needed to establish a flood threat recognition system. The National Weather Service may issue a “flash flood watch.” This means the amount of rain expected will cause ponding and other flooding on small streams and depressions. These events are sometimes so localized and rapid that a “flash flood warning” may not be issued, especially if no gages or other remote threat recognition equipment is available.
4–31 Meteorological Hazards The National Weather Service is the prime agency for detecting meteorological threats, such as tornadoes, thunderstorms, and winter storms. As with floods, the federal agency can only look at the large scale, e.g., whether conditions are appropriate for formation of a tornado. For tornadoes and thunderstorms, the county or municipalities can provide more site-specific and timely recognition by sending out spotters to watch the skies when the Weather Service issues a watch or warning.
4.6.2 Warning After the threat recognition system tells TAEMA that a flood or other hazard is coming, the next step is to notify the public and staff of other agencies and critical facilities. The earlier and the more specific the warning, the greater the number of people who can implement protection measures. The following are the more common warning media:
· Outdoor warning sirens · Sirens on public safety vehicles · NOAA Weather Radio · Commercial or public radio or TV stations · Cable TV emergency news inserts · Telephone trees · Door-to-door contact · Mobile public address systems Multiple or redundant systems are the most effective, since people do not hear one warning, they may still get the message from another part of the system. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Outdoor warning sirens can reach the most people quickly (except those around loud noise, such as at a factory or during a thunderstorm), but they do not explain what hazard is coming and cannot be sounded unless a timely means of threat recognition exists. Radio and TV provide a lot of information, but people have to know to turn them on. Telephone trees are also fast, but can be expensive and do not work when phones lines are down.
Just as important as issuing a warning is telling people what to do. A warning program should have a public information aspect. People need to know the difference between a tornado warning (when they should seek shelter in a basement) and a flood warning (when they should stay out of basements).
4.6.3 Response The protection of life and property is the foremost important task of those responding to an emergency. Concurrent with threat recognition and issuing warnings, a community should respond with actions that can prevent or reduce damage and injuries. Typical actions and responding parties include the following:
4–32 · Activating the emergency operations room (emergency management) · Closing streets or bridges (police or public works) · Shutting off power to threatened areas (utility company) · Holding children at school/releasing children from school (school district) · Passing out sand and sandbags (public works) · Ordering an evacuation (mayor) · Opening evacuation shelters (Red Cross) · Monitoring water levels (engineering) · Security and other protection measures (police) An emergency action plan ensures that all bases are covered and that the response activities are appropriate for the expected threat. These plans are developed in coordination with the agencies or offices that are given various responsibilities.
Emergency response plans should be updated annually to keep contact names and telephone numbers current and to make sure that supplies and equipment that will be needed are still available. They should be critiqued and revised after disasters and exercises to take advantage of the lessons learned and changing conditions. The end result is a coordinated effort implemented by people who have experience working together so that available resources will be used in the most efficient manner.
4.6.4 Critical Facilities Protection “Critical facilities” are not strictly defined by any agency. Generally, they fall into two categories:
· Buildings or locations vital to the response and recovery effort, such as police and fire stations and telephone exchanges; and · Buildings or locations that, if damaged, would create secondary disasters, such as hazardous materials facilities and nursing homes. Protecting critical facilities during a disaster is the responsibility of the facility owner or operator. However, if they are not prepared for an emergency, the rest of the community could be impacted. If a critical facility is damaged, workers and resources may be unnecessarily drawn away from other response efforts. If such a facility is adequately prepared by the owner or operator, it will be better able to support the community's emergency response efforts.
Most critical facilities have full-time professional managers or staff who are responsible for the facility during a disaster, and who usually have their own emergency response plans. Many facilities would benefit from early warning, response planning, and coordination with community response efforts.
4–33 4.6.5 Post-Disaster Recovery and Mitigation After a disaster, communities should undertake activities to protect public health and safety, facilitate recovery, and prepare people and property for the next disaster. Throughout the recovery phase, everyone wants to get “back to normal.” The problem is, “normal” means the way they were before the disaster. Measures needed include the following:
Recovery Actions · Patrolling evacuated areas to prevent looting · Providing safe drinking water · Monitoring for diseases · Vaccinating residents for tetanus · Clearing streets · Cleaning up debris and garbage · Regulating reconstruction to ensure that it meets all code requirements, including the NFIP’s substantial damage regulations Mitigation Actions · Conducting a public information effort to advise residents about mitigation measures they can incorporate into their reconstruction work The Department of Public Works continuously monitors the quality · Evaluating damaged public facilities to of the City’s streams, waterways identify mitigation measures that can be and detention ponds. included during repairs · Acquiring substantially or repeatedly damaged properties from willing sellers · Planning for long-term mitigation activities · Applying for post-disaster mitigation funds Requiring permits, conducting inspections, and enforcing the NFIP substantial improvement/substantial damage regulations can be very difficult for local, understaffed and overworked offices after a disaster. If these activities are not carried out properly, the municipality will not only miss a tremendous opportunity to redevelop or clear out a hazardous area, it may be violating its obligations under the NFIP.
4.6.6 Conclusions 1. Using solid, dependable threat recognition systems is first and foremost in emergency services. 2. Following a threat recognition, multiple or redundant warning systems and instructions for action are most effective in protecting citizens.
4–34 3. Good emergency response plans that are updated yearly ensure that well-trained and experienced people can quickly take the appropriate measures to protect citizens and property. 4. To ensure effective emergency response, critical facilities protection must be part of the plan. 5. Post-disaster recovery activities include providing neighborhood security, safe drinking water, appropriate vaccinations, and cleanup and regulated reconstruction.
4.6.7 Recommendations The following table lists recommended emergency service activities. They are listed in priority order as recommended by the THMCAC. Refer to “Chapter 5: Action Plan,” Table 5–1, for a complete listing of all recommended mitigation measures by hazard and priority.
Table 4–5: Recommended Mitigation Activities for Emergency Services
Priority Hazard Mitigation Measure
9 General Evaluate and upgrade warning systems. 10 General Provide backup facilities for the 911 Center and the Emergency Operations Center. 20 Floods Launch an automatic monitoring and warning system for spot flooding. 24 General Install an emergency communication network for fire, police, 911, EMSA and other emergency operations. 26 Urban fires and Implement a fire suppression system for City Hall. wildfires 42 Tornadoes and Prepare weather-warning systems for interstate travelers, high winds such as message boards and proper education for travelers. 44 General Provide community Emergency Response Team training for City employees and work with other local CERTs. 49 Tornadoes and Supply NOAA Weather Radio to all local government high winds buildings, schools, hospitals, and critical facilities. 51 General Provide survival equipment and supplies for City emergency response teams to cover employees and others who use City buildings. 52 Dam failures Develop warning and evacuation plans for Arkansas River and releases areas at risk from dam failure or release flooding. 58 Lightning Designate individuals at city recreation facilities that are educated in storm spotting and safety, who have the authority to take proper action. 59 Lightning Add lightning warning into the current warning siren system.
4–35 4.7 Natural Resource Protection
Natural resource protection activities are generally aimed at preserving and restoring the natural and beneficial uses of natural areas. In doing so, these activities enable the beneficial functions of floodplains and drainageways to be better realized. These natural functions include:
· Storage of floodwaters · Absorption of flood energy · Reduction of flood scour · Infiltration and aquifer/ groundwater recharge · Removal/filtration of excess nutrients, pollutants, and sediments from floodwaters · Habitat for flora and fauna · Recreation and aesthetic opportunities, and · Opportunities for off-street Wetlands are a valued and protected resource hiking and biking trails in Tulsa. This section reviews natural resource protection activities that preserve natural areas and mitigate damage from other hazards. Integrating these activities into the hazards mitigation program will not only reduce the City’s susceptibility to flood damage, but will also improve the overall environment.
4.7.1 Wetland Protection Wetlands are often found in floodplains and depressional areas of a watershed. Many wetlands receive and store floodwaters, thus slowing and reducing downstream flows. They also serve as a natural filter, which helps to improve water quality, and provide habitat for many species of fish, Wetlands wildlife, and plants. · Store large amounts of floodwaters · Reduce flood velocities and erosion Wetlands are regulated by the U.S. Army · Filter water, making it cleaner for those Corps of Engineers and the U.S. downstream Environmental Protection Agency under · Provide habitat for species that cannot Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. live or breed anywhere else Before a “404” permit is issued, the plans are reviewed by several agencies, including the Corps and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Each of these agencies must sign off on individual permits. There are also nationwide permits that allow small projects that meet certain criteria to proceed without individual permits.
4–36 4.7.2 Erosion and Sedimentation Control Farmlands and construction sites typically contain large areas of bare exposed soil. Surface water runoff can erode soil from these sites, sending sediment into downstream waterways. Sediment tends to settle where the river slows down and loses power, such as when it enters a lake or a wetland.
Sedimentation will gradually fill in channels and lakes, reducing their ability to carry or store floodwaters. When channels are constricted and flooding cannot deposit sediment in the bottomlands, even more is left in the channels. The result is either clogged streams or increased dredging costs.
Not only are the drainage channels less able to do their job, but the sediment in the
water reduces light, oxygen, and water Construction projects, which can expose quality and often brings chemicals, heavy large areas to erosion, are closely monitored. metals and other pollutants. Sediment has been identified as the nation’s number one nonpoint source pollutant for aquatic life.
Practices to reduce erosion and sedimentation have two principal components:
1. Minimize erosion with vegetation; and 2. Capture sediment before it leaves the site.
Slowing surface water runoff on the way to a drainage channel increases infiltration into the soil and reduces the volume of topsoil eroded from the site. Runoff can be slowed down by measures such as terraces, contour strip farming, no-till farm practices, sediment fences, hay or straw bales, constructed wetlands, and impoundments (e.g., sediment basins and farm ponds).
Erosion and sedimentation control regulations mandate that these types of practices be incorporated into construction plans. They are usually oriented toward construction sites rather than farms. The most common approach is to require applicants for permits to submit an erosion and sediment control plan for the construction project. This allows the applicant to determine the best practices for the site.
One tried and true approach is to have the contractor design the detention basins with extra capacity. They are built first, so they detain runoff during construction and act as sediment catch basins. The extra capacity collects the sediment that comes with the runoff until the site is planted and erosion is reduced.
4–37 4.7.3 River Restoration There is a growing movement that has several names, such as “stream conservation,” “bioengineering” or “riparian corridor restoration.” The objective of these approaches is to return streams, streambanks and adjacent land to a more natural condition, including the natural meanders. Another term is “ecological restoration” which restores native indigenous plants and animals to an area.
A key component of these efforts is to use appropriate native plantings along the banks that resist erosion. This may involve “retrofitting” the shoreline with willow cuttings, wetland plants, and/or rolls of landscape material covered with a natural fabric that decomposes after the banks are stabilized with plant roots.
Studies have shown that after establishing the right vegetation, long- term maintenance costs are lower than Retrofitting streambanks with willow cuttings and geotextiles can be more cost effective than riprap or if the banks were concrete. The Natural concrete-lined floodways. Resources Conservation Service estimates that over a ten-year period, the combined costs of installation and maintenance of a natural landscape may be one-fifth of the cost for conventional landscape maintenance, e.g., mowing turf grass.
4.7.4 Best Management Practices Point source pollutants come from pipes such as the outfall of a municipal wastewater treatment plant. State and federal water quality laws have reduced the pollutants that come from these facilities.
Nonpoint source pollutants come from non-specific locations and are harder to regulate. Examples are lawn fertilizers, pesticides, and other farm chemicals, animal wastes, oils from street surfaces and industrial areas, and sediment from agriculture, construction, mining and forestry. These pollutants are washed off the ground’s surface by stormwater and flushed into receiving storm sewers, ditches and streams.
Best management practices (“BMPs”) are measures that reduce nonpoint source pollutants that enter the waterways. BMPs can be implemented during construction and as part of a project’s design to permanently address nonpoint source pollutants.
There are three general categories of BMPs:
1. Avoidance—Setting construction projects back from the stream. 2. Reduction—Preventing runoff that conveys sediment and other water-borne pollutants, such as planting proper vegetation and conservation tillage.
4–38 3. Cleansing—Stopping pollutants after they are en route to a stream, such as using grass drainageways that filter the water and retention and detention basins that let pollutants settle to the bottom before they are drained.
In addition to improving water quality, BMPs can have flood related benefits. By managing runoff, they can attenuate flows and reduce the peaks after a storm. Combining water quality and water quantity measures can result in more efficient multi-purpose stormwater facilities.
Because of the need to clean up our rivers and lakes, there are several laws mandating the use of best management practices for new developments and various land uses. The farthest reaching one is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
4.7.5 Dumping Regulations NPDES addresses liquid pollutants. Dumping regulations address solid matter, such as shopping carts, appliances and landscape waste that can be accidentally or intentionally thrown into channels or wetlands. Such materials may not pollute the water, but they can obstruct even low flows and reduce the channels’ and wetlands’ ability to convey or clean stormwater.
Many cities have nuisance ordinances that prohibit dumping garbage or other “objectionable waste” on public or private property. Waterway dumping regulations need to also apply to “non-objectionable” materials, such as grass clippings or tree branches that can kill ground cover or cause obstructions in channels.
Many people do not realize the consequences of their actions. They may, for example, fill in the ditch in their front yard not realizing that it is needed to drain street runoff. They City employee Laureen Gibson Gilroy on Mooser Creek with a clean up crew of children may not understand how regrading their yard, from South Haven Manor filling a wetland, or discarding leaves or branches in a watercourse can cause a problem to themselves and others. Therefore, a dumping enforcement program should include public information materials that explain the reasons for the rules as well as the penalties.
Regular inspections to catch violations also should be scheduled. Finding dumped materials is easy; locating the source of the refuse is hard. Usually the owner of property adjacent to a stream is responsible for keeping the stream clean. This may not be fair for sites near bridges and other public access points.
4–39 4.7.6 Conclusions 1. Wetlands play an important role in flood control, preservation of water quality, and wildlife habitation, making a strong case for their protection. 2. Erosion can be reduced by use of vegetation. Sedimentation should be captured before it leaves its original location with oversized detention basins. 3. Vegetation used along riverbanks works more effectively in river maintenance than using banks made of concrete. The City of Tulsa uses geotextile fabric to establish vegetation along drainageways and stream banks. Bioengineering techniques, such as willow plantings, are used to stabilize the banks of larger natural waterways. 4. Nonpoint source pollutants are best managed by keeping construction projects away from streams, reducing sediment runoff, and using grass drainageways and detention basins for filtration. 5. Dumping regulations need to be communicated to the public and enforced.
6. The establishment and maintenance of wildlife habitat and natural ecosystems is an important aspect of the City of Tulsa’s floodplain management and drainage system program. In the cooperation with the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, aquatic plants and wildlife are established in stormwater detention ponds.
4.7.7 Recommendations As of the date of this plan, there are no further recommendations made by the THMCAC that apply to natural resource protection activities. The City of Tulsa performs most of the activities mentioned in this section.
4–40
Chapter 5: Action Plan
Chapter 5: Action Plan
The City of Tulsa has reviewed and analyzed the risk assessment studies for the natural hazards and hazardous material events that may impact the community. The THMCAC prioritized the mitigation measures identified in Chapter 4, and developed an Action Plan for the highest priority measures. This chapter identifies specific high priority actions to achieve the City’s mitigation goals, the lead agency responsible for implementation of each action item, an anticipated time schedule, estimated cost opinion, and identification of possible funding sources.
Dam Failure 1. Develop a computer mapping program for results of Arkansas River’s Keystone Dam release rates of 250, 350, and 450 thousand cubic feet per second. 1a. Reassess facts about the Keystone Dam capacity, release rates, and timing. 1b. Update U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrology and Hydraulics for the Arkansas River and Keystone Dam. 1c. Develop GIS (digitized) mapping program for results of Arkansas River’s Keystone Dam release rates of 250, 350, and 450 thousand cfs. 1d. Update warning and evacuation plans for Arkansas River areas at risk from dam failure or release flooding. 1e. Develop pre- and post-flood plans for the Arkansas River floodplain, including the areas behind the levees. Lead: City of Tulsa Department of Public Works, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and Indian Nations Council of Governments (INCOG). Time Schedule: 2003-2004 Estimated Cost: $325,000 Source of Funding: Local, USACE, HMGP Work Product/Expected Outcome: 1) Updated hydrology and hydraulic model for the Arkansas River and the Keystone Dam; 2) Digitized mapping in GIS format of the Arkansas River floodplain with inundation areas for the 250 cfs, 350 cfs, 450 cfs release rates, and maximum probable flood mapped from the Keystone Dam to Wagoner County; 3) Updated warning and evacuation plan for the areas at risk, including the areas behind the levees; and 4) Pre- and post-flood development/redevelopment plans for the Arkansas River floodplain, including the areas behind the levees.
5–1
Extreme Heat 2. Obtain funding for distribution of public information and education materials to vulnerable populations through participating community agencies. 2a. Review and update Tulsa’s heat response plan. 2b. Obtain funding for publication and distribution of public information and education materials to vulnerable populations through participating community agencies. Lead: Project Impact/Mayor’s Citizen Corps, Community Service Council, Tulsa Area Emergency Management Agency, Time Schedule: 2002-2003 Estimated Cost: $38,000 Source of Funding: Local, HMGP Work Product/Expected Outcome: 1) Update heat response plan, including identification of vulnerable populations, such as age, poverty, infirmed, non-English speaking, and so on; 2) Popular informational brochures specifically aimed at target vulnerable populations.
Hazardous Materials Events 3. Continue the City’s Household Pollutant Collection program, and build a year- round site for collection. 3a. Update the study for routing of hazardous materials through the Tulsa area. (Hazardous materials routes through Tulsa study done in 1997 by the University of Oklahoma.) 3b. Continue the City’s Household Pollutant Collection program and build a year-round site for collection. Lead: Public Works, The Metropolitan Environmental Trust (The Met), INCOG Time Schedule: 2002-2005 Estimated Cost: $2,000,000 Source of Funding: Local, HMGP, EPA Work Product/Expected Outcome: 1) Updated Hazardous Materials Transportation Plan, and 2) Facility for the year-round collection and disposal of hazardous household pollutants.
5–2
Drought 4. Build a third flow line to the Hudson Lake reservoir for additional water supply by 2020. Tulsa gets the raw water it uses to produce drinking water from two main sources: the Eucha/Spavinaw lakes chain and Lake Oologah. Each source is transported through a flow line to treatment plants in the city. The City also has rights to raw water from Lake Hudson, but that water travels through the same flow line as the Eucha/Spavinaw water. Adding a third flow line will allow Tulsa to use water from all three sources at the same time.
4a. Build a third flow line to Lake Hudson for additional water supply by 2020. 4b. Tie the Oologah and Spavinaw systems together at the Bird Creek Station. 4c. Continue Tulsa’s “Wise use of Water” program. 4d. Develop and implement plans to designate when a drought begins and ends. Lead: Department of Public Works, Utility Metropolitan Utility Authority Time Schedule: 2002-2020 Estimated Cost: $2,000,000 Source of Funding: General Obligation Bond Issues, Rate Payer User Fees Work Product/Expected Outcome: 1) A raw water line from Tulsa to Lake Hudson to secure municipal water resources for the next 50 years; 2) A line to tie the Oologah and Spavinaw systems together.
Expansive Soils 5. Investigate codes/incentives for the construction of new foundations to avoid expansive soil problems. Lead: Department of Public Works, Development Services, U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Tulsa Homebuilders Association. Time Schedule: 2002-2003 Estimated Cost: $20,000 Source of Funding: Local, Natural Resources Conservation Service, HMGP Work Product/Expected Outcome: 1) Plan and program to identify areas of existing development where expansive soils cause problems; 2) Identify areas for future development where expansive soils may cause problems; 3) Investigate the adequacy of current codes to alleviate foundation problems due to expansive soils; 4) Educational information for distribution to homeowners and home builders about expansive soils mitigation measures.
5–3
Floods 6. Implement structural and non-structural flood mitigation measures for flood- prone properties as recommended in the basin-wide master drainage plans. Tulsa’s Flood and Stormwater Management Plan looks at two ways to reduce and prevent flood damage to properties. One way is called “structural” and involves building detention ponds or other structures to keep the water away from the property. Another way is called “non-structural” and involves relocation or demolition so that the property is “moved away” from the water.
6a. Continue to update and revise basin-wide master drainage plans where changed conditions warrant. 6b. Implement structural and non-structural flood mitigation measures for flood-prone properties as recommended in the basin-wide master drainage plans. 6c. Launch an automatic monitoring and warning system for spot flooding. 6d. Educate the public on what the multi-sound sirens mean in the Tulsa area.
Lead: Department of Public Works, TAEMA (6e) Time Schedule: Ongoing Estimated Cost: $ 393,442,000 Source of Funding: Local General Obligation Bond Issues, Local Capital Improvements Sales Taxes, Stormwater Utility Fee, Fee-in-lieu-of Detention funds, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects, HMGP. Work Product/Expected Outcome: A community where all property and infrastructure is protected to the 100-year Base Flood Elevation.
7. Acquire and remove Repetitive Loss Properties and repeated flooded properties where the City’s Repetitive Loss and master drainage plans identify acquisition to be the most cost effective and desirable mitigation measure. The National Flood Insurance Program keeps track of insurance claims made for flood damages. Properties where claims of $1,000 or more have occurred at least twice in the past 10 years are called “Repetitive Loss Properties.” In addition, the City of Tulsa keeps track of properties that suffer repeated damages that are less than $1,000 each.
Lead: Department of Public Works Time Schedule: Ongoing Estimated Cost: $ 58,000,000 Source of Funding: Local sales tax and bond issues, HMGP, FMA Work Product/Expected Outcome: Acquisition and removal of all buildings from the floodplain where acquisition is deemed to be the most cost-effective means of flood mitigation and protection.
5–4
General 8. Examine optimum methods of implementing public information and education objectives concerning tornadoes, high winds, lightning, winter storms, extreme heat, fire, Hazmat events, expansive soils, and wise use of water resources. Currently, the City of Tulsa, other public agencies, private businesses, and non-profit groups conduct educational campaigns to inform the public about measures that can be taken to reduce the danger of property damage and injury from natural and technological hazards.
8a. Examine optimum methods of implementing public information and education objectives concerning tornadoes, high winds, lightning, winter storms, extreme heat, fire, hazardous materials incidents, expansive soils, and wise use of water resources. 8b. GIS update to include public utility infrastructure. 8c. Install an emergency communication network for Fire, Police, 911, EMSA and other emergency operations. 8d. Execute daytime population maps for the Tulsa community. 8e. Translate current public information to other languages. 8f. Review and update the Debris Management Plan. Lead: Department of Public Works, Tulsa Area Emergency Management Agency, 911 Center, and Project Impact/Mayor’s Citizen Corps Time Schedule: Time Schedule Cost Lead 8a. 2002-2007 $ 78,000 Public Works, Project Impact /Mayor’s Citizen Corps 8b. 2002-2006 $ 325,000 Public Works 8c. 2002-2006 $ 125,000 Telecom/ Info. Mgt. Dept. 8d. 2002-2005 $ 50,000 TCC Health, INCOG, Pub. Wks. 8e. 2002-2003 $ 35,250 Project Impact, Red Cross, Community Services Council 8f. 2002-2003 $ 45,000 Public Works Sources of Funding: 8a. Local, HMGP; 8b. Local revenue issues, Homeland Security; 8c. Local, Homeland Security; 8d. Local, Homeland Security; 8e. Local, HMGP; 8f. Local, HMGP. Work Products/Expected Outcome: 8a. A plan for the distribution of hazard preparedness and mitigation literature to vulnerable populations; 8b. GIS layer for public utility infrastructure; 8c. Emergency communications network for First Responders and disaster/emergency operations agencies; 8d. GIS inventory of daytime populations; 8e. Emergency and hazard information translated into languages of large foreign, non-English speaking populations; 8f. Updated debris management plan, especially
5–5
important for high debris producing events, such as tornadoes, high winds, and winter storms. 9. Evaluate and upgrade warning systems. Tulsa’s siren system was state of the art when it was installed in the mid-1980s, but newer, better designs are now available. The 79 sirens currently in place each have an expected lifespan of 20 years so they will likely need to be replaced during this decade.
Lead: Tulsa Area Emergency Management Agency Time Schedule: 2002-2006 Estimated Cost: $1,500,000 Source of Funding: Local, FEMA Work Product/Expected Outcome: Outdoor emergency warning system covering all areas of the city.
10. Provide backup facilities for the 911 Center and the Emergency Operations Center. Currently, Tulsa’s emergency operations are coordinated in one downtown building that houses the 911 Center and the Emergency Operations Center. If that building is damaged in a disaster, operations will have to be conducted from some other place. Contingency plans call for operations to be shifted to other government offices, but workers would not have equipment and supplies dedicated to emergency use at those facilities. Having backup facilities away from downtown designed exclusively for emergency use would save time during a disaster if current facilities were unavailable.
Lead: TAEMA and 911 Center Time Schedule: 2002-2006 Estimated Cost: $6,000,000 Source of Funding: Local, Homeland Security Work Product/Expected Outcome: Modern, secure Emergency Operation Center and 911 Center capable of operating during disasters or man-made emergencies.
5–6
Table 5–1: Multi-Hazard Mitigation Measures, By Priority and Hazard
Priority Hazard Mitigation Measure
1 Dam failures Develop GIS (digitized) mapping program for results of Arkansas and releases River’s Keystone Dam release rates of 250, 350, and 450 thousand cubic feet per second. 2 Extreme Heat Obtain funding for distribution of public information and education materials to vulnerable populations through participating community agencies. 3 Hazardous Continue the City’s Household Pollutant Collection program, and materials events build a year-round collection site. 4 Drought Build a third flow line to the Hudson Lake reservoir for additional water supply by 2020. 5 Expansive soils Investigate codes/incentives for the construction of new foundations to avoid expansive soil problems. 6 Floods Implement structural and non-structural flood mitigation measures for flood-prone properties, as recommended in the basin-wide master drainage plans. 7 Floods Acquire and remove Repetitive Loss Properties and repeatedly flooded properties where City plans identify acquisition to be the most cost effective and desirable mitigation measure. 8 General Examine optimum methods of implementing public information and education objectives concerning tornadoes, high winds, lightning, winter storms, extreme heat, fire, hazardous materials events, expansive soils, and wise use of water resources. 9 General Evaluate and upgrade warning systems. 10 General Provide new facilities for the 911 Center and the Emergency Operations Center. 11 General Update GIS to include public utility infrastructure. 12 Drought Tie the Oologah and Spavinaw systems together at the Bird Creek Station. 13 Winter storms Continue the City’s aggressive snow and ice removal plan. 14 Earthquakes Building reinforcements against wind and tornado damage will also protect against the minor earthquakes projected for the Tulsa area. 15 General Review and update the Debris Management Plan. 16 Dam failures Develop pre- and post-flood plans for the Arkansas River and releases floodplain, including the areas behind the levees. 17 Levee failures Re-evaluate and update the master drainage plans for areas behind (protected by) the levees. 18 Tornadoes and Investigate building codes/incentives for adequacy for tornadoes high winds and high winds. 19 Tornadoes and Provide mobile home community shelters/safe rooms. high winds
5–7
Priority Hazard Mitigation Measure
20 Floods Launch an automatic monitoring and warning system for spot flooding. 21 Urban fires and Continue replacing inadequately sized water lines with lines of wildfires sufficient size to provide proper fire protection to annexed and existing areas. 22 Tornadoes and Provide employee shelters at critical facilities, such as 911 high winds Center (priority 1), two fire stations (priority 2), and the remainder of fire stations. 23 Tornadoes and Provide group safe rooms at City Recreation Centers. high winds 24 General Install an emergency communication network for fire, police, 911, EMSA and other emergency operations. 25 Levee failures Continue work on checking, monitoring, and replacing existing levees. 26 Urban fires and Implement a fire suppression system for City Hall. wildfires 27 Lightning Provide surge protection for computer-reliant critical facilities, e.g., 911 Center, Emergency Operations Center, police stations, fire stations, and so on. 28 Lightning Educate the community about proper lightning safety through public service announcements and other media outlets. 29 Lightning Study other communities that have lightning warning systems. 30 Winter storms Provide for routine trimming of trees to reduce power outages during storms. 31 Winter storms Reduce the number of overhead power lines by moving existing and new lines below ground. 32 Hazardous Update the study for routing of hazardous materials through the materials events Tulsa area. 33 Tornadoes and Provide safe rooms in fire and police stations. high winds 34 Tornadoes and Perform tornado and high wind evaluations of Tulsa schools to high winds determine the best ways to retrofit or remodel buildings to make them more disaster resistant. 35 Floods Continue to update and revise basin-wide master drainage plans where changed conditions warrant. 36 Dam failures Update US Army Corps of Engineers hydrology and hydraulics and releases for the Arkansas River and Keystone Dam. 37 General Contact agencies that distribute information to at-risk communities, such as the elderly, infirm, poor, and outside workers. 38 Urban fires and Apply for mitigation funding for backflow values for commercial, wildfires industrial, and multi-family buildings.
5–8
Priority Hazard Mitigation Measure
39 Urban fires and Continue fire department’s smoke detector program, Project Life. wildfires 40 Tornadoes and Investigate community tornado shelter programs implemented in high winds other cities or states. 41 Tornadoes and Safe room rebates for low income and vulnerable populations. high winds 42 Tornadoes and Prepare weather-warning systems for interstate travelers, such high winds as message boards and proper education for travelers. 43 Floods and Educate the public on what the multi-sound sirens mean in the tornadoes Tulsa area. 44 General Provide community Emergency Response Team training for City employees and work with other local CERTs. 45 General Compile daytime population maps for the Tulsa community. 46 Dam failures Assemble facts about the Keystone Dam capacity, release rates and releases and timing. 47 Levee failures Study and develop a plan to address levee damage in Tulsa. 48 Lightning Provide educational demonstrations on whole-house surge protection technology. 49 Tornadoes and Supply NOAA Weather Radio to all local government buildings, high winds schools, hospitals, and critical facilities. 50 Tornadoes and Begin a revolving fund for families to build safe rooms. high winds 51 General Provide survival equipment and supplies for City emergency response teams to cover employees and others who use City buildings. 52 Dam failures Develop warning and evacuation plans for Arkansas River areas and releases at risk from dam failure or release flooding. 53 Hailstorms Provide hail resistant roofing for City buildings. 54 Urban fires and Develop a public education project addressing the advantages of wildfires individual fire suppression in residences. 55 Urban fires and Fund a fire suppression pilot project for single-family residences wildfires in a publicly funded development in the Lacy Park area. 56 Urban fires and Evaluate fire protection and prevention for animals, employees, wildfires and visitors to Tulsa Zoo. 57 Urban fires and Continue education, and get funding to further inform people on wildfires evacuation plans for City offices, businesses and residential homes. 58 Lightning Designate individuals at city recreation facilities that are educated in storm spotting and safety, who have the authority to take proper action. 59 Lightning Add lightning warning into the current warning siren system.
5–9
Priority Hazard Mitigation Measure
60 Drought Develop and implement plans to determine when a drought begins and ends. 61 Tornadoes and Provide damage-resistant glass replacements for City Hall. high winds 62 General Provide security and surveillance equipment for police and fire stations. 63 General Translate current public information into other languages. 64 Extreme heat Review and update Tulsa’s heat response plan. 65 Drought Continue Tulsa’s “Wise Use of Water” program. 66 Lightning Encourage utilities to provide lightning prevention information materials and programs to their customers.
5–10
Chapter 6: Plan Maintenance and Adoption
Chapter 6: Plan Maintenance and Adoption
This chapter includes a discussion of the plan maintenance process and documentation of the adoption of the plan by the Tulsa Hazard Mitigation Citizen Advisory Committee, the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, and the Tulsa City Council. 6.1 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan
The City of Tulsa will ensure that a regular review and update of the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan occurs. The THMCAC will continue to meet on a quarterly basis, or as conditions warrant, to oversee and review updates and revisions to the plan. The Department of Public Works will continue to head the Staff Technical Advisory Committee, which will monitor and oversee the day-to-day implementation of the plan.
The City of Tulsa is in the process of updating the city-wide Flood and Stormwater Management Plan 1999-2014, and the Elm Creek Master Drainage Plan, preparing an Open Channel Inventory program for all streams and drainage channels within the city, has applied for Hazard Mitigation Grant Projects (FEMA-1355-DR-OK and FEMA- 1401-DR-OK), and an HMGP Phase 2 Hazard Mitigation Plan grant to plan for man- made and technological hazards, including terrorism. These plans are anticipated to take about 2 years to complete. Many Action Items recommended in this plan have already been incorporated into the City’s Capital Improvements Planning process. These programs, like the CRS Repetitive Loss Plan, will continue to be monitored and updated on an annual basis, if not more often. 6.2 Public Involvement
The City of Tulsa is committed to involving the public directly in updating and maintaining the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Electronic copies of the Plan will be distributed to the public libraries, and the plan will be placed on the City of Tulsa’s Website.
Activities to Consider 1. Public meetings will be held prior to the severe weather season in Oklahoma, probably in the spring. These meetings will be advertised to the general citizenry, and specifically mentioned in the annual floodplain notice mailed to all occupants of the city’s floodplains. These meetings will be held to update citizens on the progress that has been made during the year in implementing the plan, stormwater plans and capital improvements, and related public infrastructure capital projects. The meetings will
6–1
also be used to distribute literature and inform and educate citizens as to actions they can take to mitigate natural hazards, save lives, and prevent property damage. Input from the citizens will be solicited as to how the mitigation process can be more effective. 2. City Life bill stuffers 3. Tulsa Hazard Mitigation Citizens Advisory Committee will continue to meet on a monthly basis or as needed. 4. Public Service Announcements 6.3 Incorporating the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
The Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan has been adopted by the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission as an amendment to the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Comprehensive Plan. The Tulsa City Council has adopted the plan to guide City mitigation activities. Appropriate Action Items will be incorporated into the Capital Improvements Plan and planning process. The recommendations will also be used to guide City actions for the Community Rating System’s (CRS) Repetitive Loss Plan.
Included on the following pages of this chapter are Resolutions of Adoption of the City of Tulsa Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan:
1. Tulsa Hazard Mitigation Citizen Advisory Committee (THMCAC) 2. Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission 3. Tulsa City Council
6–2
Appendix A: Glossary of Hazard Mitigation Terms
Glossary of Terms
Anchoring: Special connections made to ensure that a building will not float off, blow off or be pushed off its foundation during a flood or storm.
Base Flood: Flood that has a 1 percent probability of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Also known as the 100-year flood.
Base Flood Elevation (BFE): Elevation of the base flood in relation to a specified datum, such as the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. The Base Flood Elevation is used as the standard for the National Flood Insurance Program.
Basement: Any floor level below grade.
Bedrock: The solid rock that underlies loose material, such as soil, sand, clay, or gravel.
Building: A structure that is walled and roofed, principally above ground and permanently affixed to a site. The term includes a manufactured home on a permanent foundation on which the wheels and axles carry no weight.
Community Rating System (CRS): A National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that provides incentives for NFIP communities to complete activities that reduce flood hazard risk. When the community completes specified activities, the insurance premiums of policyholders in these communities are reduced.
Computer-Aided Design And Drafting (CADD): A computerized system enabling quick and accurate electronic 2-D and 3-D drawings, topographic mapping, site plans, and profile/cross-section drawings.
Consequences: The damages, injuries, and loss of life, property, environment, and business that can be quantified by some unit of measure, often in economic or financial terms.
Contour: A line of equal ground elevation on a topographic (contour) map.
Critical Facility: Facilities that are critical to the health and welfare of the population and that are especially important during and following hazard events. Critical facilities include shelters, police and fire stations, schools, childcare centers, senior citizen centers, hospitals, disability centers, vehicle and equipment storage facilities, emergency operations centers, and city hall. The term also includes buildings or locations that, if damaged, would create secondary disasters, such as hazardous materials facilities, vulnerable facilities, day care centers, nursing homes, and housing likely to contain occupants who are not very mobile. Other critical city infrastructure such as telephone exchanges and water treatment plants are referred to as lifelines. See Lifelines.
A–1
Dam Breach Inundation Area: The area flooded by a dam failure or programmed release.
Debris: The scattered remains of assets broken or destroyed in a hazard event. Debris caused by a wind or water hazard event can cause additional damage to other assets.
Development: Any man-made change to real estate.
Digitize: To convert electronically points, lines, and area boundaries shown on maps into x, y coordinates (e.g., latitude and longitude, universal transverse mercator (UTM), or table coordinates) for use in computer applications.
Duration: How long a hazard event lasts.
Earthquake: A sudden motion or trembling that is caused by a release of strain accumulated within or along the edge of earth's tectonic plates.
Emergency: Any hurricane, tornado, storm, flood, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, drought, fire, explosion, or other catastrophe in any part of the United States which requires federal emergency assistance to supplement State and local efforts to save lives and protect property, public health and safety, or to avert or lessen the threat of a disaster. Defined in Title V of Public Law 93-288, Section 102(1).
Emergency Operations Center (EOC): A facility that houses communications equipment that is used to coordinate the response to a disaster or emergency.
Emergency Operations Plan (EOP): Sets forth actions to be taken by State or local governments for response to emergencies or major disasters.
Emergency Response Plan: A document that contains information on the actions that may be taken by a governmental jurisdiction to protect people and property before, during, and after a disaster.
Extent: The size of an area affected by a hazard or hazard event.
Fault: A fracture in the continuity of a rock formation caused by a shifting or dislodging of the earth's crust, in which adjacent surfaces are differentially displaced parallel to the plane of fracture.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): The independent agency created in 1978 to provide a single point of accountability for all Federal activities related to disaster mitigation and emergency preparedness, response and recovery.
FIPS: Stands for Federal Information Processing Standards. Under the Information Technology Management Reform Act (Public Law 104-106), the Secretary of Commerce approves standards and guidelines that are developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
A–2
for Federal computer systems. These standards and guidelines are issued by NIST as Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) for use government-wide. NIST develops FIPS when there are compelling Federal government requirements such as for security and interoperability and there are no acceptable industry standards or solutions.
Fire Potential Index (FPI): Developed by United States Geological Survey (USGS) and United States Forest Service (USFS) to assess and map fire hazard potential over broad areas. Based on such geographic information, national policy makers and on-the-ground fire managers established priorities for prevention activities in the defined area to reduce the risk of managed and wildfire ignition and spread. Prediction of fire hazard shortens the time between fire ignition and initial attack by enabling fire managers to pre-allocate and stage suppression forces to high fire risk areas.
Flash Flood: A flood event occurring with little or no warning where water levels rise at an extremely fast rate.
Flood: A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from (1) the overflow of inland or tidal waters, (2) the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source, or (3) mudflows or the sudden collapse of shoreline land.
Flood Depth: Height of the flood water surface above the ground surface.
Flood Elevation: Elevation of the water surface above an established datum, e.g. National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929, North American Vertical Datum of 1988, or Mean Sea Level.
Flood Hazard Area: The area shown to be inundated by a flood of a given magnitude on a map.
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): Map of a community, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which shows both the special flood hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community.
Flood Insurance Study (FIS): A study that provides an examination, evaluation, and determination of flood hazards and, if appropriate, corresponding water surface elevations in a community or communities.
Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA): A planning and project implementation grant program funded by the National Flood Insurance Program. Provides pre-disaster grants to State and local governments for both planning and implementation of mitigation strategies. Grant funds are made available from NFIP insurance premiums, and therefore are only available to communities participating in the NFIP.
Flood of Record: The highest known flood level for the area, as recorded in historical documents.
A–3
Floodplain: Any land area, including watercourse, susceptible to partial or complete inundation by water from any source.
Floodproofing: Protective measures added to or incorporated in a building to prevent or minimize flood damage. “Dry floodproofing” measures are designed to keep water from entering a building. “Wet floodproofing” measures minimize damage to a structure and its contents from water that is allowed into a building.
Floodway: The stream channel and that portion of the adjacent floodplain which must remain open to permit conveyance of the base flood. Floodwaters are generally the swiftest and deepest in the floodway. The floodway should remain clear of buildings and impediments to the flow of water.
Freeboard: A margin of safety added to a protection measure to account for waves, debris, miscalculations, lack of scientific data, floodplain fill, or upstream development.
Frequency: A measure of how often events of a particular magnitude are expected to occur. Frequency describes how often a hazard of a specific magnitude, duration, and/or extent typically occurs, on average. Statistically, a hazard with a 100-year recurrence interval is expected to occur once every 100 years on average, and would have a 1 percent chance – its probability – of happening in any given year. The reliability of this information varies depending on the kind of hazard being considered.
Fujita Scale of Tornado Intensity: Rates tornadoes with numeric values from F0 to F5 based on tornado wind speed and damage sustained. An F0 indicates minimal damage such as broken tree limbs or signs, while an F5 indicates severe damage sustained.
Functional Downtime: The average time (in days) during which a function (business or service) is unable to provide its services due to a hazard event.
Geographic Area Impacted: The physical area in which the effects of the hazard are experienced.
Geographic Information System (GIS): A computer software application that relates physical features on the earth to a database to be used for mapping and analysis.
Ground Motion: The vibration or shaking of the ground during an earthquake. When a fault ruptures, seismic waves radiate, causing the ground to vibrate. The severity of the vibration increases with the amount of energy released and decreases with distance from the causative fault or epicenter, but soft soils can further amplify ground motions.
Hazard: A source of potential danger or adverse condition. An event or physical condition that has the potential to cause fatalities, injuries, property and infrastructure damage, agriculture loss, damage to the environment, interruption of business, or other types of harm or loss. Hazards, as defined in this study, will include naturally occurring events such as floods, dam failures, levee failures, tornadoes, high winds, hailstorms, lightning, winter storms, extreme heat, drought,
A–4
expansive soils, urban fires, wildfires that strike populated areas, and earthquakes. A natural event is a hazard when it has the potential to harm people or property. For purposes of this study, hazardous materials events are also included.
Hazard Event: A specific occurrence of a particular type of hazard.
Hazard Identification: The process of defining and describing a hazard, including its physical characteristics, magnitude and severity, probability and frequency, causative factors, and locations or areas affected.
Hazard Mitigation: Sustained actions taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to human life and property from natural and technological hazards and their effects. Note that this emphasis on long-term risk distinguishes mitigation from actions geared primarily to emergency preparedness and short-term recovery.
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP): Authorized under Section 404 of the Stafford Act; a FEMA disaster assistance grant program that funds mitigation projects in conformance with post-disaster mitigation plans required under Section 409 of the Stafford Act. The program is available only after a Presidential disaster declaration.
Hazard Mitigation Plan: The plan resulting from a systematic evaluation of the nature and extent of vulnerability to the effects of natural hazards present in society that includes the actions needed to minimize future vulnerability to hazards. Section 409 of the Stafford Act requires the identification and evaluation of mitigation opportunities, and that all repairs be made to applicable codes and standards, as condition for receiving Federal disaster assistance. Enacted to encourage identification and mitigation of hazards at all levels of government.
Hazard Profile: A description of the physical characteristics of hazards and a determination of various descriptors including magnitude, duration, frequency, probability, and extent. In most cases, a community can most easily use these descriptors when they are recorded and displayed as maps.
HAZUS (Hazards U.S.): A GIS-based nationally standardized earthquake loss estimation tool developed by FEMA.
Hydrology: The science of dealing with the waters of the earth. A flood discharge is developed by a hydrologic study.
Infrastructure: The public services of a community that have a direct impact on the quality of life. Infrastructure includes communication technology such as phone lines or Internet access, vital services such as public water supplies and sewer treatment facilities, and includes an area's transportation system such as airports, heliports; highways, bridges, tunnels, roadbeds, overpasses, railways, bridges, rail yards, depots, and waterways, canals, locks, and regional dams.
A–5
Insurance Service Office, Inc. (ISO): An insurance organization that administers several programs that rate a community’s hazard mitigation activities.
Intensity: A measure of the effects of a hazard event at a particular place.
Landslide: Downward movement of a slope and materials under the force of gravity.
Lifelines: Transportation and utility systems that are essential to the function of a region and to the well being of its inhabitants. Transportation systems include highways, air, rail, and waterways, ports, and harbors. Utility systems include electric power, gas and liquid fuels, telecommunications, water, and wastewater.
Liquefaction: The phenomenon that occurs when ground shaking causes loose soils to lose strength and act like viscous fluid. Liquefaction causes two types of ground failure: lateral spread and loss of bearing strength.
Lowest Floor: Under the NFIP, the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement) of a structure.
Magnitude: A measure of the strength of a hazard event. The magnitude (also referred to as severity) of a given hazard event is usually determined using technical measures specific to the hazard.
Mitigation: Sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from natural and technological hazards and their effects. Note that this emphasis on long-term risk distinguishes mitigation from actions geared primarily to emergency preparedness and short-term recovery (Burby, 1998).
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): A federal program created by Congress in 1968 that provides the availability of flood insurance to communities in exchange for the adoption and enforcement of a minimum floodplain management ordinance specified in 44 CFR §60.3. The ordinance regulates new and substantially damaged or improved development in identified flood hazard areas.
National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD): Datum established in 1929 and used in the NFIP as a basis for measuring flood, ground, and structural elevations, previously referred to as Sea Level Datum or Mean Sea Level. The Base Flood Elevations shown on most of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency are referenced to NGVD.
National Weather Service (NWS): Prepares and issues flood, severe weather, and coastal storm warnings and can provide technical assistance to Federal and state entities in preparing weather and flood warning plans.
A–6
Oklahoma Department of Civil Emergency Management (ODCEM): The State department responsible for hazard mitigation, community preparedness, emergency response, and disaster recovery.
Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB): The State agency responsible for administration of the National Flood Insurance Program, and the dam safety program.
Planimetric: Describes maps that indicate only man-made features like buildings.
Planning: The act or process of making or carrying out plans; the establishment of goals, policies and procedures for a social or economic unit.
Planning for Post-Disaster Reconstruction: The process of planning (preferably prior to an actual disaster) those steps the community will take to implement long-term reconstruction with one of the primary goals being to reduce or minimize its vulnerability to future disasters. These measures can include a wide variety of land-use planning tools, such as acquisition, design review, zoning, and subdivision review procedures. It can also involve coordination with other types of plans and agencies but is distinct from planning for emergency operations, such as restoration of utility services and basic infrastructure.
Preparedness: Activities to ensure that people are ready for a disaster and respond to it effectively. Preparedness requires figuring out what will be done if essential services break down, developing a plan for contingencies, and practicing the plan.
Probability: A statistical measure of the likelihood that a hazard event will occur.
Project Impact: A program that encourages business, government agencies and the public to work together to build disaster-resistant communities.
Reconstruction: The long-term process of rebuilding the community’s destroyed or damaged buildings, public facilities, or other structures.
Recovery: The process of restoring normal public or utility services following a disaster, perhaps starting during but extending beyond the emergency period to that point when the vast majority of such services, including electricity, water, communications, and public transportation have resumed normal operations. Recovery activities necessary to rebuild after a disaster include rebuilding homes, businesses and public facilities, clearing debris, repairing roads and bridges, and restoring water, sewer and other essential services. Short-term recovery does not include the reconstruction of the built environment, although reconstruction may commence during this period.
Recurrence Interval: The time between hazard events of similar size in a given location. It is based on the probability that the given event will be equaled or exceeded in any given year.
A–7
Repetitive Loss Property: A property that is currently insured for which two or more National Flood Insurance Program losses (occurring more than ten days apart) of at least $1000 each have been paid within any 10-year period since 1978. While Repetitive Loss Properties constitute only 2% of insured properties, they account for 40% of flood damage claims against the NFIP.
Replacement Value: The cost of rebuilding a structure. This is usually expressed in terms of cost per square foot, and reflects the present-day cost of labor and materials to construct a building of a particular size, type and quality.
Retrofitting: Modifications to a building or other structure to reduce its susceptibility to damage by a hazard.
Richter Scale: A numerical scale of earthquake magnitude devised by seismologist C.F. Richter in 1935.
Risk: The estimated impact that a hazard would have on people, services, facilities, and structures in a community; the likelihood of a hazard event resulting in an adverse condition that causes injury or damage. Risk is often expressed in relative terms such as a high, moderate or low likelihood of sustaining damage above a particular threshold due to a specific type of hazard event. It also can be expressed in terms of potential monetary losses associated with the intensity of the hazard.
Risk Assessment: A process or method for evaluating risk associated with a specific hazard and defined in terms of probability and frequency of occurrence, magnitude and severity, exposure and consequences. Also defined as: “The process of measuring the potential loss of life, personal property, housing, public facilities, equipment, and infrastructure; lost jobs, business earnings, and lost revenues, as well as indirect losses caused by interruption of business and production; and the public cost of planning, preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery. (Burby, 1998).
Riverine: Of or produced by a river.
Scale: A proportion used in determining a dimensional relationship; the ratio of the distance between two points on a map and the actual distance between the two points on the earth's surface.
Scarp: A steep slope.
Scour: Removal of soil or fill material by the flow of flood waters. The term is frequently used to describe storm-induced, localized conical erosion around pilings and other foundation supports where the obstruction of flow increases turbulence.
Seismicity: Describes the likelihood of an area being subject to earthquakes.
A–8
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA): An area within a floodplain having a 1 percent or greater chance of flood occurrence in any given year (100-year floodplain); represented on Flood Insurance Rate Maps by darkly shaded areas with zone designations that include the letter A or V.
Stafford Act: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, PL 100- 107 was signed into law November 23, 1988 and amended the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, PL 93-288. The Stafford Act is the statutory authority for most Federal disaster response activities, especially as they pertain to FEMA and its programs.
State Hazard Mitigation Team: Composed of key State agency representatives, the team evaluates hazards, identifies strategies, coordinates resources, and implements measures that will reduce the vulnerability of people and property to damage from hazards. The Oklahoma State Hazard Mitigation Team is convened by the Oklahoma Department of Civil Emergency Management (ODCEM), and includes the State departments of Agriculture, Climatological Survey, Commerce, Environmental Quality, Health, Human Services, Insurance, Transportation, Wildlife Conservation, Conservation Commission, Corporation Commission, Historical Society, Insurance Commission, Water Resources Board, Association of County Commissioners (AACCO), Oklahoma Municipal League (OML), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO): The representative of state government who is the primary point of contact with FEMA, other state and Federal agencies, and local units of government in the planning and implementation of pre- and post-disaster mitigation activities.
Stormwater Management: Efforts to reduce the impact of stormwater or snowmelt runoff on flooding and water quality.
Stormwater Detention: The storing of stormwater runoff for release at a restricted rate after the storm subsides, or the flood crest passes.
Substantial Damage: Damage of any origin sustained by a structure in a Special Flood Hazard Area whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before-damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage.
Surface Faulting: The differential movement of two sides of a fracture – in other words, the location where the ground breaks apart. The length, width, and displacement of the ground characterize surface faults.
Tectonic Plate: Torsionally rigid, thin segments of the earth's lithosphere that may be assumed to move horizontally and adjoin other plates. It is the friction between plate boundaries that cause seismic activity.
Topographic: Characterizes maps that show natural features and indicate the physical shape of the land using contour lines. These maps may also include man-made features.
Tornado: A violently rotating column of air extending from a thunderstorm to the ground.
A–9
Vulnerability: Describes how exposed or susceptible to damage an asset is. Vulnerability depends on an asset's construction, contents, and the economic value of its functions. Like indirect damages, the vulnerability of one element of the community is often related to the vulnerability of another. For example, many businesses depend on uninterrupted electrical power – if an electric substation is flooded, it will affect not only the substation itself, but a number of businesses as well. Often, indirect effects can be much more widespread and damaging than direct ones.
Vulnerability Assessment: The extent of injury and damage that may result from a hazard event of a given intensity in a given area. The vulnerability assessment should address impacts of hazard events on the existing and future built environment.
Wildfire: An uncontrolled fire spreading through vegetative fuels, exposing and possibly consuming structures.
Zone: A geographical area shown on a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that reflects the severity or type of flooding in the area.
A–10
Appendix B: Stormwater Capital Improvements Projects Appendix B PRIORITIZED STORMWATER CAPITAL PROJECTS
Revised Rankin Description of CIP Project Priority of Watershed Name FMA Priority Cost Location of Project g Value Stormwater Project Link CIP Project ($1,000) High Priority MAINSTEM FROM ACQUISITION OF TWO HOUSES CONFLUENCE WITH RB1 (DB5) Dirty Butter Creek DB2 22.0 High $ 150 BETWEEN APACHE AND TO CONFLUENCE WITH LB2 MOHAWK (DB12) AT CRAWFORD PARK REPLACE ALL STORM SEWER SWAN CREEK FROM PEORIA Swan Creek & Travis INLETS AND INLET PIPES ALONG SW3 22.0 High $ 65 TO DOWNSTREAM OF UTICA Park MAIN STORM SEWER TRUNK WOODWARD PARK REACH LINE CENTER CREEK MAINSTEM Center Creek CT1B 19.0 High $ 116 ONE ACQUISITION UPSTREAM FROM 177TH E. AVENUE NEW LARGE INLET WITH 130 LINEAR FEET OF 8 X 5 RCB AND UPSTREAM OF LAST FMA Upper Middle Mingo MUM6C& 19.0 High $ 135 PURCHASE ONE HOUSE; (MUM6C) ON TRIBUTARY FROM Creek D RETAINING WALL ON EASTLAND THE MALL ACRES PARKING LOT Nickel Creek NI16 18.0 High $ 85 FLOODPROOF TWO HOUSES LOWER HALF OF REACH NB-1 REPLACE ALL STORM SEWER SWAN CREEK MAINSTEM FROM Swan Creek & Travis INLETS AND INLET PIPES ALONG SW2 17.0 High $ 138 RAIL ROAD TO PEORIA - Park MAIN STORM SEWER TRUNK SUNSET TERRACE REACH LINE ONE HOUSE TO BE Nickel Creek NI8 16.0 High $ 48 REACH NC-1 FLOODPROOFED Lower Middle Mingo 129TH EAST AVENUE BRIDGE FROM UPSTREAM OF TMS-6 TO MLM5G 14.0 High $ 146 Creek REPLACEMENT UPSTREAM OF TMS-7 Lower Middle Mingo 21ST STREET BRIDGE MAINSTEM AT 21ST STREET MLM5E 13.0 High $ 146 Creek REPLACEMENT BRIDGE NA-1 ON THE MAINSTEM OF Nickel Creek NI15 12.0 High $ 134 ACQUIRE ONE HOUSE NICKEL CREEK REPLACE INLETS, REPLACE BUNGALOW RANCH - SWAN Swan Creek & Travis "HYDRAULIC CONSTRICTION" AT SW4 12.0 High $ 198 CREEK FROM DOWNSTREAM Park UTICA AND ACQUISITION OF ONE OF UTICA UPSTREAM HOUSE 1717 EAST 17TH LB1 FROM CONFLUENCE TO NEWTON STREET CROSSING Coal Creek CL7A 11.0 High $ 75 UPSTREAM OF NEWTON $0.05M STREET CROSSING PROPOSED CROSSING Nickel Creek NI11 11.0 High $ 102 REPLACEMENT AT WEST 78TH REACH NF-2 STREET Lower Middle Mingo 54"/ 60" RCP TO DEAL WITH FULTON AND 15TH TO 14TH MLM2H 10.0 High $ 319 Creek STEET FLOODING THEN WEST TO ERIE LB-1 existing natural channel: Parkview Creek PV3 9.0 High $ 155 Expressway Storage COAL/RB1/RB2 CONFLUENCE RB1 TO CONFLUENCE WITH Coal Creek CL3A 8.0 High $ 224 ACQUISITION RB2 Parkview Creek PV8 8.0 High $ 51 RB-2 Edison St. culvert ROSE DEW CREEK FROM #348 ROSE DEW 4TH PLACE BRIDGE AND SOUTH SIDE OF ROSE DEW CHANNEL & MEDIUM/MEDIU Center Creek CT8B 7.5 High $ 230 DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL ADDITION 3RD TO NORTH OF CROSSING M 4TH PLACE BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS STRUCTURE #68 - REPLACE 2 - 6 X 6 X 70 RCB WITH 2 - 10 X 8 X LB4 FROM DOWNSTREAM OF Lower Mingo Creek ML15B 7.5 High $ 352 100 RCB ON MINGO ROAD - MINGO ROAD UP $144,500
TUPELO MAINSTEM FROM Lower Middle Mingo REPLACE FOOTBRIDGE WITH 2 - MLM5C 7.5 High $ 157 UPSTREAM OF 16TH STREET Creek 12 X 10 RCB TO UPSTREAM OF THIS BRIDGE
2 RAILROAD CROSSINGS - (ASSUMES BAMA PIE STORAGE NORTH RAILROAD CROSSING ANDERSON Coal Creek CL4B 7.0 High $ 105 CONSTRUCTED BY PRIVATE UP-STREAM TO PINE ON RB2 WATERLINE DEVELOPERS)
INSTALL 7 X 4 REINFORCED MAINSTEM UPSTREAM OF CONCRETE BOX OR CONFLUENCE WITH LEFT BANK Crow Creek CR9 7.0 High $ 410 EQUIVALENT AT BROKEN 3 TO CONFLUENCE WITH LEFT ARROW UNDERPASS BANK 4 AND LEFT BANK 4
REPLACE MINGO ROAD Lower Mingo Creek ML13 7.0 High $ 133 AREA 5W CROSSING SOUTH OF APACHE
BROOKHOLLOW MAINSTEM TO Upper Middle Mingo MUM6A 7.0 High $ 602 MAYO PLAZA STORM SEWER UPSTREAM OF STORM SEWER Creek EAST OF 129TH EAST AVENUE
B-1 Appendix B PRIORITIZED STORMWATER CAPITAL PROJECTS
Revised Rankin Description of CIP Project Priority of Watershed Name FMA Priority Cost Location of Project g Value Stormwater Project Link CIP Project ($1,000) MAINSTEM FROM ABOVE GRASS-LINED CHANNEL AND Crow Creek CR4 6.7 High $ 249 ROCKBRIDGE STORM SEWER FLOOD BERMS TO 21ST STREET Upper Middle Mingo 2 OPEN CHANNELS AND 2 EVERYTHING ABOVE MUM2H 6.5 High $ 191 Creek CULVERTS DETENTION POND REPLACEMENT OF 48" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE Swan Creek & Travis WITH 96" REINFORCED MIDDLE TRAVIS PARK RIVERSIDE, NOT SW6 6.5 High $ 1,016 HIGH/HIGH Park CONCRETE PIPE AND REPLACE RECOMMENDATIONS FUNDED INLETS IMPROVE FLAP GATES AT OUTFALL PROPOSED STORM SEWER JUST UPSTREAM OF HARVARD Coal Creek CL9B 6.4 High $ 703 FROM RAILROAD TO JUST TO RAILROAD UPSTREAM OF HARVARD
C12 INSTALL 2 - 10 X 8 Haikey Creek HK9 6.0 High $ 141 TRIBUTARY 2-2L1 REINFORCED CONCRETE BOXES
Parkview Creek PV10 6.0 High $ 112 HIGH SCHOOL CHANNEL UPSTREAM OF 21ST ON Lower Middle Mingo 120TH E. PL. AND 121ST E. PL. MLM5F 5.7 High $ 292 MAINSTEM TO UPSTREAM OF Creek BRIDGES SOUTH OF 21ST ST. TMS-6 ADD 2 8 X 6 REINFORCED UPSTREAM OF JOPLIN TO Little Joe Creek LJ4 5.5 High $ 196 CONCRETE BOXES TO EXISTING UPSTREAM OF 54TH STREET 2 8 X 6 UPSTREAM FROM 71ST ON Haikey Creek HK6B 5.2 High $ 523 12 AF DETENTION POND LITTLE HAIKEY Lower Middle Mingo MLM5A 5.2 High $ 535 PAVED CHANNEL Creek TUPELO MAINSTEM FROM Lower Middle Mingo FOOTBRIDGE TO MLM5D 5.2 High $ 696 21ST STREET DETENTION Creek DOWNSTREAM OF 21ST STREET NEW STORM SEWER UNDER EIGHT ACRES DEVELOPMENT LEFT BANK 1 FROM UPSTREAM Crow Creek CR15B 5.0 High $ 329 AND RESTORE CHANNEL OF LEWIS UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM MAINSTEM FROM ABOVE GRASS-LINED CHANNEL - HARVARD THROUGH Fred Creek FR7 5.0 High $ 226 REPLACE PITTSBURG AND PITTSBURG + PEBBLE CREEK KNOXVILLE CROSSINGS TO NORTH OF 71ST PROJECT SS1 54" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE FROM 78TH STREET SOUTH TO LITTLE Haikey Creek HK21 5.0 High $ 158 TRIBUTARY 2 - 9R1 HAIKEY CREEK DOWNSTREAM OF THE 72ND EAST AVENUE CROSSING TR-2 private driveway: TR-2 Harlow Creek HR5 5.0 High $ 215 Storage Harlow Creek HR6 5.0 High $ 4 Harlow Tributary floodproofing (1) ACQUIRE 1225 N. MINGO ROAD -- Lower Mingo Creek ML15A 5.0 High $ 1,238 LB4 UP TO MINGO ROAD $125,000 EC TRIBUTARY FROM DOWN Lower Middle Mingo CONSTRUCT TWO INLETS (EC 2A STREAM OF EC DETENTION MLM7B 5.0 High $ 41 Creek AND EC3) ALONG 129TH E. AVE. POND TO UPSTREAM OF BOTH INLETS PROPOSED CROSSING, FLOOD- REACH MA-5 ON THE Mooser Creek MO5 5.0 High $ 274 PROOF TWO HOUSES MAINSTEM INLET REPLACEMENTS, FLOOD BANK BERM ALONG THE ARKANSAS, SWAN CREEK MAINSTEM FROM RIVERSIDE STABILIZATION Swan Creek & Travis SW1 5.0 High $ 168 SPECIAL STORM SEWER INLET MOUTH TO THE RAILROAD - IMPROVEMENTS - SANITARY Park JUST WEST OF THE BICYCLE BLAIR ESTATES REACH - FY 2000 SEWER - FY PATH 1998 FROM CRAWFORD PARK TO LINCOLN-DUNBAR IN PROCESS OSAGE EXPRESSWAY Dirty Butter Creek DB3 4.9 High $ 1,795 ACQUISITION OF 40 HOUSES RE-DEVELOPMENT OLD CITY WIDE DOWNSTREAM OF OSAGE AREA PRIORITY 19 DETENTION ON MAINSTEM.
ALONG NORTH SIDE OF BLOCK 16, BOMAN ACRES FROM JOPLIN TO IRVINGTON, ALONG 28TH STREET WEST TO Upper Middle Mingo FOLLOWS FMA ALIGNMENT - ALL MUM2C 4.8 High $ 804 HUDSON PLACE NORTH ON Creek STORM SEWERS HUDSON PLACE TO 27TH STREET + SMALL STORM SEWER BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7 BLOCK 10, BOMAN ACRES
B-2 Appendix B PRIORITIZED STORMWATER CAPITAL PROJECTS
Revised Rankin Description of CIP Project Priority of Watershed Name FMA Priority Cost Location of Project g Value Stormwater Project Link CIP Project ($1,000) LOWER CONDUIT TO OUTFALL RB2 FROM CONFLUENCE TO ANDERSON Coal Creek CL4A 4.8 High $ 673 2001/2002 $0.45M RR WATERLINE Verndale storage: 41st W. Ave Conduit & backup pump: 33rd W. Ave Storage: Madison School Lower Basin LB2 4.8 High $ 14,952 Storage: Hayden Lewis Stor: 33rd W. ave. & 5th Street Storm Sewer Imprv. Crow Creek CR7 4.8 High $ 351 PROPOSED 54" RCP RIGHT BANK 1 NEW BRIDGE AT DAWSON ROAD, RAISE ROAD AND HALF WAY BETWEEN DAWSON Coal Creek CL1F 4.7 High $ 1,534 CHANNEL WORK UPSTREM AND ROAD AND YALE TO DOWNSTREAM $1.03M UPSTREAM OF RAILROAD (CHANNEL $0.49M) NEW PARALLEL STORM SEWER Crow Creek CR17 4.7 High $ 239 LEFT BANK 0 ABOVE 31ST 31ST TO 33RD PLACE 8 X 4 RCB ALONG 18TH STREET Lower Middle Mingo FROM UPSTREAM OF MLM8B MLM8C 4.6 High $ 639 FROM 125TH EAST PLACE TO Creek TO 129TH EAST AVENUE 145TH EAST AVENUE LOUISVILLE HEIGHTS Coal Creek CL6 4.5 High $ 1,000 LB0 ACQUISITION $0.91M TL1 BELOW CONFLUENCE OF LOUISVILLE AND MARION Coal Creek CL9A 4.5 High $ 374 TL1/TL2 UPSTREAM ALONG TL1 CROSSINGS $0.25M TO RR GRASS-LINED CHANNEL FROM GRASS-LINED CHANNEL FROM Coal Creek CL9C 4.5 High $ 897 JUST UPSTREAM OF HARVARD JUST UPSTREAM OF HARVARD TO EVANSTON TO EVANSTON Mainstem at 25th W. Ave. culvert: Parkview Creek PV12 4.5 High $ 157 24th W Ave Stor RB-3 Edison St. culvert: RB-3 33rd Parkview Creek PV9 4.5 High $ 426 W Ave Channel Raise Harlow Creek levee, 4th W. Harlow Creek HR1 4.2 High $ 627 Ave. MAINSTEM FROM BROKEN RAILROAD BRIDGE, US169 ARROW EXPRESSWAY Upper Mingo Creek MU1A 4.2 High $ 685 BRIDGE THROUGH SOUTH BOUND US 169 BRIDGE
TRIBUTARY FLOW Coal Creek CL9D 4.1 High $ 1,496 CELIA CLINTON DETENTION APPROXIMATELY ABOVE GARY
RAISE PINE STREET DECK RAISE ROAD AND CHANNEL WORK 400' UPSTREAM OF RAILROAD WATERLINE Coal Creek CL1G 4.1 High $ 1,858 DOWNSTEAM (RAISING ROAD (UPSTREAM OF DAWSON) TO 98HIGH/97LOW FUNDED 2001/2002 AND CHANNEL WORK $0.85M) CONFLUENCE WITH TL1 TOTAL $1.24M 37TH WEST AVENUE CROSSING AND 57TH STREET CROSSING, 4' HIGH RETAINING WALL SOUTH Mooser Creek MO6 4.1 High $ 1,575 BANK BETWEEN THE TWO, REACH MA-6 ON MAINSTEM STREET IMPROVEMENTS AT 57TH STREET, 4 FLOOD- PROOFED BUILDINGS #348 ROSE DEW ROSE DEW CREEK ABOVE 4TH CHANNEL A& MEDIUM/MEDIU Center Creek CT8C 4.0 High $ 1,096 CONCRETE CHANNEL PLACE BRIDGE CROSSING M $940 IMPROVEMENTS Flat Rock Creek FL3C 4.0 High $ 105 36th St. N. culvert RB-1 (TRIB. A)
INSTALL A 48" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE STORM SEWER Haikey Creek HK23 4.0 High $ 539 TRIBUTARY 2-10L2 ALONG 77TH EAST AVENUE PROJECT STORM SEWER 3
RELOCATE OR ELEVATION ONE Lower Mingo Creek ML9 4.0 High $ 1 MOBILE HOME. Lower Middle Mingo UPSTREAM OF 129TH EAST MLM5H 4.0 High $ 1,445 SMITTLE DETENTION Creek AVENUE ON MAINSTEM 8 X 4 RCB FROM JOHNSON A UPPER END OF NEW 2 - 8 X 4 JOHN ATELIER Lower Middle Mingo PARK TO 125TH EAST AVENUE HIGH/HIGH -- MLM8B 4.0 High $ 733 TO 125TH EAST AVENUE AND PARK Creek AND 17TH - INCLUDES 2 $230,000 17TH IMPROVEMENTS ACQUISITIONS DOWNSTREAM OF MARSHALL Oak Creek OC4B 4.0 High $ 909 MARSHALL STORAGE $703,000 UPSTREAM TO TOP OF WATERSHED Parkview Creek PV7 4.0 High $ 573 Mainstem at Edison St. culvert
B-3 Appendix B PRIORITIZED STORMWATER CAPITAL PROJECTS
Revised Rankin Description of CIP Project Priority of Watershed Name FMA Priority Cost Location of Project g Value Stormwater Project Link CIP Project ($1,000) DIVERSION STORM SEWER (96") WITH ONE ACQUISITION FOR Swan Creek & Travis TRAVIS PARK - NORTHERN RIVERSIDE - NOT SW5 4.0 High $ 1,906 RIGHT OF WAY REPLACE HIGH/HIGH Park RECOMMENDATION FUNDED INLETS, IMPROVE FLAP GATES AT OUT FALL
TOTAL HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS $ 48,972
Medium Priority WAVERLY STORM SEWER DIVERSION, Coal Creek CL7B 3.9 Medium $ 9,647 NEWTON/EXPRESSWAY STORAGE NEWTON CROSSING $0.125; MARSHALL/BURLINGTON Coal Creek CL10 3.9 Medium $ 2,495 TL2 STORAGE $1.1M AND BNRR CROSSING $? (USE $0.1m) FROM 67TH EAST PLACE TO STORM SEWER/CULVERT FROM JOPLIN AVENUE ALONG 31ST SHERIDAN AVENUE Upper Middle Mingo MUM2A 3.9 Medium $ 3,234 67TH EAST PLACE TO SAME AS TO SHERIDAN, NORTH TO IMPROVEMENTS Creek FMA DESCRIPTION 27TH, WEST TO NORWOOD 21ST - 31ST $4.59M THEN ALONG 27TH PLACE.
2 - 8 X 5 RCB AT CONFLUENCE FROM CONFLUENCE WITH Lower Middle Mingo MLM8A 3.9 Medium $ 1,609 WITH TUPELO CREEK MAINSTEM TUPELO TO UPSTREAM END OF Creek - INCLUDES 2 ACQUISITIONS STORM SEWER
Floodproofing 7 buildings and 25- Perryman Ditch PE2 3.9 Medium $ 2,088 0 year storm sewer LAFORTUNE GOLF COURSE CONFLUENCE WITH LITTLE JOE Little Joe Creek NLJ1 3.9 Medium $ 1,485 DETENTION TO 51ST Lower Middle Mingo MLM8D 3.8 Medium $ 532 HARVEY YOUNG DETENTION ABOVE 129TH EAST AVENUE Creek PEORIA AVENUE STORM SEWER Perryman Ditch PE8,9,10 3.8 Medium $ 7,966 AND LATERAL SEWER (25 YEAR PROTECTION) ROSE DEW CREEK TO SOUTH Center Creek CT8A 3.8 Medium $ 474 REGIONAL DETENTION FACILITY SIDE OF ROSE DEW 3RD ADDITION ADD ONE 8 X 4.5' REINFORCED SHERIDAN TO UPSTREAM OF Little Joe Creek LJ6 3.8 Medium $ 430 CONCRETE BOX TO EXISTING 2 - 67TH EAST AVENUE 8 X 4.5 TRIBUTARY J TO ABOVE Vensel VE7A 3.8 Medium $ 350 SOUTH LOUISVILLE CROSSING SOUTH LOUISVILLE RB3 FROM MOUTH TO Coal Creek CL5A 3.7 Medium $ 1,197 ROSE HILL STORAGE $0.8M CROSSTOWN EXPRESSWAY 56th St. N. grass lined channel: 56th St N bridge / culvert: 56th St. N Flat Rock Creek FL7C 3.7 Medium $ 1,286 bridge/ culvert tributary: Cincinnati LB4 Ave Bridge / culvert: Elgin Ave bridge / culvert ROSEDALE AVENUE STORM ARKANSAS RIVER TO 1ST Oak Creek OC1 3.7 Medium $ 1,409 SEWER $1,103,000 STREET FROM CONFLUENCE WITH ADMIRAL PLACE TO LB1\TL1 ON MAINSTEM TO Coal Creek CL2A 3.7 Medium $ 4,038 INDEPENDENCE STORM SEWER TURNER PARK (CONFLUENCE IMPROVEMENTS WITH LB2) HARVARD AVENUE STORM SEWERS TO 12TH LB2 UPSTREAM TO 12TH MEDIUM/MEDIU Coal Creek CL8A 3.7 Medium $ 6,282 UPGRADE 4TH - STREET $4.2M STREET M 11TH SPRINGDALE STORAGE, US 75 TO UPSTREAM OF Dirty Butter Creek DB5C 3.7 Medium $ 10,469 COMMERCIAL ACQUISITION, YOUNG ON RB1 (DB5) STORM SEWER PINE TO YOUNG.
TOTAL MEDIUM PRIORITY PROJECTS $ 54,992
B-4 Appendix B PRIORITIZED STORMWATER CAPITAL PROJECTS
Revised Rankin Description of CIP Project Priority of Watershed Name FMA Priority Cost Location of Project g Value Stormwater Project Link CIP Project ($1,000) Low Priority Storage floodproofing at 65th W. Ave.: Sunset Acres West Stor: 61st W Ave conduit & backup pump: Sunset Acres East Stor: Mayfair Stor: Lawn Ridge Stor: Ex Lower Basin LB1 3.7 Low $ 21,205 Turnaround Stor: Mayfair Channel: Turnaround Channel: North Lawn Ridge Channel: South Lawn Ridge Channel: Vern Heights Stor: Overflow Acq & Inlets (KINGSTON SUMP ACQUISITION DONE!) STORM SEWER - CONFLUENCE WITH RB2 TO Coal Creek CL3B 3.7 Low $ 2,288 RAILROAD TO OUTFALL ($1.53M) RAIL ROAD END INCLUDING INLET STRUCTURE AT SUMP (ALTERNATIVE 37)
RB1 FROM CONFLUENCE TO Dirty Butter Creek DB5A 3.7 Low $ 1,018 MOHAWK BRIDGE AT RB1 (DB5) UPSTREAM OF MOHAWK BLVD.
C10 - 3 8 X 8 REINFORCED UPSTREAM OF 74TH EAST Haikey Creek HK5C 3.7 Low $ 258 CONCRETE BOXES AT 72ND AVENUE TO DOWNSTREAM OF STREET SOUTH 71ST ON LITTLE HAIKEY CONFLUENCE WITH 3-12 X 6 REINFORCED Little Joe Creek LJ2 3.7 Low $ 251 NORTHFORK TO UPSTREAM OF CONCRETE BOX (REPLACE EX) HUDSON REPLACE EXISTING WITH 35' UPSTREAM OF HUDSON TO Little Joe Creek LJ3 3.7 Low $ 285 SINGLE SPAN BRIDGE UPSTREAM OF JOPLIN UPSTREAM FROM MCCLURE Lower Middle Mingo 2 - 8 X 8 RCB; 2 - 8 X 5 RCB AND 2 MLM2A 3.7 Low $ 4,020 PARK TO 67TH E. AVENUE AND Creek - 8 X 4 RCB 6TH STREET Newblock storm sewers: Charles Page Culvert: 33rd W Ave Storage: Parkview Creek PV1 3.7 Low $ 3,632 25th W Ave Storage: Newblock berm North: Newblock berm South Parkview Creek PV5 3.7 Low $ 3,173 Easton St. storage
GRASS-LINED CHANNEL, STORM RB1 UPSTREAM OF MOHAWK Dirty Butter Creek DB5B 3.6 Low $ 1,944 SEWER AND APACHE CROSSING TO RAILROAD/US 75
LEFT BANK 2R (HICKORY Crow Creek CR13 3.6 Low $ 569 21st St. underpass storm sewer MANOR) Peoria Ave. storm sewer & grass- Flat Rock Creek FL6 3.6 Low $ 658 lined channel : 46th St. N Storm LB3 Sewer Flat Rock Creek FL7A 3.6 Low $ 733 46th St. No. Bridge Replacement LB4 Commerce Park channelization & Upper Mingo Creek MU6 3.6 Low $ 569 replace 2 street structures APACHE STREET CROSSING - MAINSTEM GILCREASE Coal Creek CL1C 3.6 Low $ 1,532 DAWSON ACQUISITION IS EXPRESSWAY TO ERIE COMPLETE AVENUE
GRASS-LINED CHANNEL 1150' ROLLING HILLS CREEK TO Rolling Hills RH1 3.6 Low $ 1,302 LONG CARL SANBURG ELEMENTARY
Crossing replacement along tributary, channel construction from Upper Mingo Creek MU5 3.6 Low $ 3,034 55th Pl. south to Garnett Rd. & property acquisition (1 acq.) Bird Creek BD1 3.5 Low $ 162 0
TOTAL LOW PRIORITY PROJECTS $ 46,634
Deferred Projects PROPOSED NEW HAVEN STORM MAINSTEM FROM TURNER Coal Creek CL2B 3.5 Defer $ 7,628 SEWER UPSTREAM OF TURNER PARK TO 15TH STREET. PARK $5.1M STORM SEWER - RAILROAD TO RAILROAD TO NEWTON PLACE Coal Creek CL3C 3.5 Defer $ 4,427 NEWTON PLACE $2.96M ON RB1 PROPERTY ACQUISITION; 39TH Flat Rock Creek FL8A 3.5 Defer $ 479 RB3 ST. NO. GRASS-LINED CHANNEL
B-5 Appendix B PRIORITIZED STORMWATER CAPITAL PROJECTS
Revised Rankin Description of CIP Project Priority of Watershed Name FMA Priority Cost Location of Project g Value Stormwater Project Link CIP Project ($1,000) C8 - ADD 12 X 9 REINFORCED CONCRETE BOXES AT 74TH EAST AVENUE -- CH1 - GRASSLINED CHANNEL 74TH LH8 AND LH9 TO UPSTREAM OF Haikey Creek HK5B 3.5 Defer $ 504 EAST AVENUE TO 76TH EASE 74TH EAST AVENUE AVENUE -- C9 - REPLACE WITH 3 8 X 8 REINFORCED CONCRETE BOXES AT 76TH EAST AVENUE Harlow acquisition (1 acq.) & floodproofing (3 struct.): Harlow Harlow Creek HR2 3.5 Defer $ 334 Edison St. Culvert: Harlow Private driveway Sandy Park storage: Cunningham Storage: Vern Rayburn Storage: Lower Basin LB4 3.5 Defer $ 5,715 Vern Rayburn Channel: Allowance for local collector pipes & inlets Lower Middle Mingo OPEN CHANNEL AND 4 BRIDGES UPSTREAM FROM 11TH TO MLM2C 3.5 Defer $ 2,212 Creek (2 RR, JOPLIN AND 15TH) UPSTREAM FROM 15TH TRIBUTARY F TO ABOVE 91ST Vensel VE4 3.5 Defer $ 237 91ST STREET CROSSING STREET BRIDGE AT PINE, GRASS-LINED ANDERSON PINE TO INDEPENDENCE ON CONSTRUCTED Coal Creek CL4C 3.4 Defer $ 3,290 CHANNEL PINE TO WATERLINE FROM RB2 IN 2000/2001 INDEENDENCE $2.2M ARCHER TO PINE CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS, 71ST Lower Middle Mingo FROM JOHN PAUL JONES MLM3A 3.4 Defer $ 2,607 E. AVENUE, 68TH E. PLACE Creek SCHOOL TO 21ST STREET CULVERT 1,200 LINEAR FEET GRASS-LINED CHANNEL;FLOOD-PROOF ONE REACH MA-4 ON THE Mooser Creek MO4 3.4 Defer $ 1,364 HOUSE, 2 CROSSINGS (1 MAINSTEM PRIVATE DRIVE AND 1 LOWER CROSSING) DOWNSTREAM OF BRIDLE Fry Ditch No. 2 FD1B 3.4 Defer $ 4,883 BRIDLE TRAILS ACQUISITION TRAILS TO DOWNSTREAM OF 101ST LB-2 Channel; Mainstem at 33rd W. Parkview Creek PV6 3.4 Defer $ 617 Ave. culvert: Edison St Channel: Lower Edison Channel Upper Middle Mingo EXPRESSWAY SOUTH TO 36TH MUM2G 3.4 Defer $ 1,752 DETENTION POND Creek STREET Upper Harlow storage: Upper Harlow Creek HR3 3.3 Defer $ 3,878 Harlow Culverts PROJECT UNIT JL-9 IN REPORT UPSTREAM OF 54TH STREET Little Joe Creek LJ5 3.3 Defer $ 935 STORMWATER DETENTION TO SHERIDAN FACILITY AND ONE ACQUISITION STORM SEWER NEWTON PLACE Coal Creek CL3D 3.3 Defer $ 6,985 TO INDEPENDENCE AND JOPLIN RB ABOVE NEWTON PLACE $4.67M Pond 1 and Outlet to Arkansas River: Outlet for Pond 2 to Arkansas Garden City GC1 3.3 Defer $ 4,156 GARDEN CITY River: Swales and Appurtenances: Storm Sewers Houston detention facility: Cincinnati Flat Rock Creek FL7D 3.3 Defer $ 1,361 LB4 Ave bridge / culvert trib. Coal Creek CL5B 3.3 Defer $ 2,243 URBANA STORAGE $1.5M RB3 AT POND LOCATION Harlow Creek HR4 3.3 Defer $ 359 RB-2 storage WHEELING LATIMER STORAGE FACILITY ON RB1 (DB5), RR SPUR UPSTREAM FROM YOUNG TO Dirty Butter Creek DB5D 3.2 Defer $ 4,068 CROSSING, GRASS-LINED UPPER END OF RB1 (DB5) CHANNEL FROM SPUR TO BNRR, BNRR CROSSING STORM SEWER FROM LATIMER TO OPEN CHANNEL, GRASS- TL-2 ABOVE SPRINGDALE Dirty Butter Creek DB6 3.2 Defer $ 4,038 LINED CHANNEL TO DETENTION STORAGE FACILITY, 2 CROSSINGS
DRAINAGE BASIN TO STORM SEWER ALONG ANDERSON 2000/2001 Coal Creek CL4D 3.2 Defer $ 897 MAINSTEM AT INDEPENDENCE INDEPENDENCE $0.6M WATERLINE CONSTRUCTION FOR THIS PROJECT ONLY
OWEN PARK Oak Creek OC3A 3.2 Defer $ 1,046 0 DEVELOPMENT
B-6 Appendix B PRIORITIZED STORMWATER CAPITAL PROJECTS
Revised Rankin Description of CIP Project Priority of Watershed Name FMA Priority Cost Location of Project g Value Stormwater Project Link CIP Project ($1,000) PHASE 1 - NEW GRASS-LINED CHANNEL FY2000 - DOWNSTREAM OF RIVERSIDE $560,000 ALSO DRIVE: CHANNEL PEDESTRIAN REHABILITATION FROM BRIDGE & RIVERSIDE TO CINCINNATI AND STORMWATER ACQUISITION OF ONE RIVERSIDE FROM ARKANSAS RIVER TO IMPROVEMENTS Crow Creek CR1 3.1 Defer $ 1,270 APARTMENT BUILDING; NEW PARKWAY PEORIA - NOT FUNDED CONCRETE LINED CHANNEL WIDENING NEST BOND FROM CINCINNATI TO A POINT ISSUE - 300' DOWNSTREAM OF PEORIA HIGH/HIGH; AVENUE; REHAB 300' OF OLD NOTE: SANDSTONE CHANNEL SUBMITTED FOR DOWNSTREAM OF PEORIA. ICT FUNDS MAINSTEM ABOVE CITYVIEW STORAGE (RIGHT OF Crow Creek CR10 3.1 Defer $ 1,762 CONFLUENCE WITH LEFT BANK WAY PARTIALLY ACQUIRED) 4 48th Pl. N. & Hartford concrete channel exp.: Property Acquisition Flat Rock Creek FL7B 3.1 Defer $ 1,720 LB4 (2 acq): 48th Pl N Bridge / culvert: Hartford Ave bridge / culvert
FROM OPEN CHANNEL NORTH OF 15TH WEST OF RAILROAD 8 X 5 RCB UPSTREAM AND UPSTREAM THROUGH Lower Middle Mingo PARALLEL TO EX. 54" RCP, MLM2I 3.1 Defer $ 1,799 RAILROAD PROPERTY, Creek REPLACE 48" WITH 8 X 7 , THEN 8 THROUGH GLEASON VILLAGE, X 6 THEN 7 X 5 THEN 6 X 5 ACROSS 21ST TO 21ST PLACE AND FULTON
HALF WAY BETWEEN NEW YALE BRIDGE, RAISE ROAD DARLINGTON AND YALE TO YALE WIDENING Coal Creek CL1E 3.1 Defer $ 2,736 AND CHANNEL WORK $1.83M LOW/LOW HALF WAY BETWEEN YALE AND PINT TO APACHE (CHANNEL $0.98M) DAWSON ROAD. 3 Street crossing replacements on 145th E. Ave. & 51st St. S.; & B.A. Upper Mingo Creek MU2 3.1 Defer $ 3,680 Expwy. crossing box addition, & regional detention Industrial West Storage: Industrial East Storage: Newblock Park Storage: East Newblock Park Lower Basin LB3 3.1 Defer $ 4,585 Channel: West Newblock Park Channel: Quarry Storage: Rehabilitation of ex pump sta at Parkway Outfall Floodproofing 5 buildings and Perryman Ditch PE4,6 3.1 Defer $ 22,724 redesign and rehab. of existing storm sewer MAINSTEM UPSTREAM FROM Coal Creek CL2C 3.0 Defer $ 2,691 FAIRGROUNDS STORAGE $1.8M 15TH STREET UPPER AND LOWER DELAWARE Coal Creek CL7C 3.0 Defer $ 5,384 STORM SEWER TR1 TO UPSTREAM OF XYLER Dirty Butter Creek DB7A 3.0 Defer $ 8,375 XYLER STORAGE STORAGE PROJECT C24 - GARNETT Haikey Creek HK26 3.0 Defer $ 77 OPENING 9' X 4.5' REINFORCED TRIBUTARY 3 CONCRETE BOX TL-1 57th W. Ave. culvert and Harlow Creek HR7 3.0 Defer $ 516 channel: Harlow Trib Storage 51ST TO UPSTREAM SIDE OF Little Joe Creek NLJ2 3.0 Defer $ 1,704 YMCA DETENTION FACILITY YMCA DETENTION AT FULTON HUDSON - IRVINGTON STORM EVERYTHING ABOVE HUDSON Little Joe Creek NLJ4 3.0 Defer $ 2,448 SEWER PLACE DOWNSTREAM OF EDISON TO EDISON STREET STORAGE Oak Creek OC3B 3.0 Defer $ 336 UPSTREAM OF PROPOSED $265,000 EDISON STORAGE Lower LB-1 channel: Middle LB-1 Parkview Creek PV2 3.0 Defer $ 2,763 Channels: LB-1 Conduit ROLLING HILLS CREEK Rolling Hills RH2 3.0 Defer $ 1,543 REGIONAL DETENTION UPSTREAM FROM CARL SANDBURG ELEMENTARY Lower Middle Mingo NEAR 67TH E. AVENUE AND MLM2B 2.9 Defer $ 2,651 0 Creek 6TH TO UPSTREAM TO 11TH Lower Northland detention facility Flat Rock Creek FL8B 2.9 Defer $ 1,840 (5.9% public pay) & 36th St. N. RB3 storm sewer
B-7 Appendix B PRIORITIZED STORMWATER CAPITAL PROJECTS
Revised Rankin Description of CIP Project Priority of Watershed Name FMA Priority Cost Location of Project g Value Stormwater Project Link CIP Project ($1,000) McClain detention facility: 46th St N Flat Rock Creek FL5 2.9 Defer $ 1,481 Crossing: Grass-lined channel at LB2 Peoria & 51st LB-1 Upper channel: LB-1 Storm Parkview Creek PV4 2.9 Defer $ 1,104 Sewer *POSSIBLY WITH CRAWFORD GRASS-LINED CHANNEL, 2 Dirty Butter Creek DB12 2.8 Defer $ 5,084 LB2 PARK CROSSINGS, STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS (PARK DEPT.) STORM SEWERS ABOVE RB3 DRAINAGE AREA ABOVE Coal Creek CL5C 2.8 Defer $ 2,393 EXPRESSWAY DRAINING INTO CL5C URBANA STORAGE $1.6M
JSF FROM UPPER END OF REMAINDER OF RECOMMENDED South Fork Joe JSF2 2.8 Defer $ 2,680 IMPROVEMENTS UPSTREAM PLAN OF HARVARD TO 61ST STREET
UPSTREAM OF 57TH THROUGH Little Joe Creek LJ8 2.8 Defer $ 2,728 0 WOODLAND VIEW DETENTION POND WOODLAND VIEW STORM UPSTREAM OF WOODLAND Little Joe Creek LJ9 2.8 Defer $ 2,459 SEWER VIEW 72ND EAST AVENUE STORM UPSTREAM OF 67TH PLACE TO Little Joe Creek LJ7 2.7 Defer $ 1,286 SEWER 57TH *R/W PURCHASE CHANNEL & RAIL ROAD GILCREASE WHEN Dirty Butter Creek DB10 2.7 Defer $ 1,092 LB1 CROSSING EXPRESSWAY R/W GILCREASE R/W IS PURCHASED ADD 5 X 5 REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX AND REPLACE Fred Creek FR13 2.7 Defer $ 309 ANOTHER WITH A 12 X 6 WEST TRIBUTARY ABOVE 71ST REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX AT 69TH STREET SOUTH Lower Middle Mingo MLM3H 2.6 Defer $ 1,852 Channel Improvements Creek LEFT BANK 0 FROM MAINSTEM Crow Creek CR16 2.6 Defer $ 547 NEW PARALLEL STORM SEWER TO 31ST Property acquisition near Birmingham Pl. & 4th Pl. (9 acq.) : Flat Rock Creek FL1 2.6 Defer $ 6,326 MAINSTEM Lewis Ave bridge & roadway elevation NEW BRIDGE (DARLINGTON) MAINSTEM ERIE AVENUE TO 1/2 AND CHANNEL ENLARGEMENT Coal Creek CL1D 2.6 Defer $ 1,097 WAY BETWEEN DARLINGTON THROUGH DAWSON PARK 0.71 M AND YALE (0.36m IS CHANNEL WORK) Vensel VE9B 2.5 Defer $ 218 HARVARD AVENUE CROSSING TRIBUTARY D ABOVE 91ST Parkview Creek PV11 2.4 Defer $ 545 Fairview concrete channel EAST 108TH STREET SOUTH TRIBUTARY J ABOVE SOUTH Vensel VE7B 2.4 Defer $ 527 CROSSING LOUISVILLE 141st E. Ave. culvert replacement: Cooley Creek CO8 2.3 Defer $ 305 138th E Ave culvert replacement: 11th St S culvert replacement MODIFY STRUCTURE #64 TO WIDEN PINE FROM LB3 FROM UPSTREAM OF Lower Mingo Creek ML14B 2.3 Defer $ 306 RAISE PINE TO ELEVATION 630 -- MEMORIAL/MINGO MED/MED MINGO TO WEST SIDE OF PINE $105,967 $5,635,000 CPS branch storm sewer (7th St.): Elm Creek EL7 2.3 Defer $ 4,157 CPS Det. Fac. Cherry/Red Fork CH7A 2.3 Defer $ 1,371 0 LEFT BANK 3 FROM RAILROAD Crow Creek CR12 2.3 Defer $ 2,031 GLENDALE STORAGE UPSTREAM STORM SEWER UPSTREAM OF Dirty Butter Creek DB7B 2.2 Defer $ 3,290 TR1 ABOVE XYLER STORAGE XYLER STORAGE 52ND AND 105TH EAST CHANNEL REHABILITATION AND Upper Mingo Creek MU1B 2.2 Defer $ 4,853 AVENUE, SE UPSTREAM DETENTION POND THROUGH TS1D TO MINGO Apache Rd. detention pond on main Flat Rock Creek FL3F 2.2 Defer $ 1,062 RB-1 (TRIB. A) stem BROKEN ARROW DETENTION Elm Creek EL3 2.1 Defer $ 1,403 FACILITY: MIDDLE BRANCH STORM SEWER (18th ST)
B-8 Appendix B PRIORITIZED STORMWATER CAPITAL PROJECTS
Revised Rankin Description of CIP Project Priority of Watershed Name FMA Priority Cost Location of Project g Value Stormwater Project Link CIP Project ($1,000) REHAB SANDSTONE CHANNEL AND REPLACE 29TH STREET STRUCTURE WITH 3-CELL REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX, ELEVATE ROADWAY; REHAB MAINSTEM FROM SANDSTONE CHANNEL; NEW CONFLUENCE WITH LEFT BANK Crow Creek CR3 2.1 Defer $ 3,813 SANDSTONE/GRASS-LINED O TO APPROX. 200' UPSTREAM CHANNEL; REHAB SANDSTONE OF THE CONFLUENCE WITH CHANNEL AND UPGRADE LB1 (CR14/15) UTICA/TERWILLIGER BRIGHT/CULVERT; NEW GRASS- LINED CHANNEL AND ROCKBRIDGE STORM SEWER Lower Middle Mingo 3 BRIDGES AND 2 CHANNEL MLM4 2.1 Defer $ 2,598 ALL OF TRIBUTARY LB72-R Creek IMPROVEMENTS CHANNEL AND DETENTION Upper Mingo Creek MU1C 2.1 Defer $ 2,970 61ST STREET TO MINGO ROAD POND AND ACQUISITION
STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS LB1 UPSTREAM OF 12TH Coal Creek CL8B 2.0 Defer $ 4,188 ABOVE 12TH STREET - $2.8M STREET
DOWNSTREAM OF 91ST TO 91ST WIDENING MEDIUM/MEDIU Fry Ditch No. 2 FD4A 2.0 Defer $ 234 91ST STREET CROSSING DOWNSTREAM OF HOLLAND $14.26 MILLION M DETENTION PROJECT P11 IN MDP - CONSTRUCT BERM AND 36" TRIBUTARY 2-9 TO BELOW Haikey Creek HK20A 2.0 Defer $ 523 OUTLET PIPE ALONG SHERIDAN MINSHALL PARK POND TO POND 53 AK
PROJECT C25 - 2 15' X 14' TRIBUTARY 4 TO UPSTREAM Haikey Creek HK27 2.0 Defer $ 333 REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX OF HWY 169 DETENTION POND
C7 IN REPORT - ADD 2 - 10 X 8 81ST STREET MEDIUM/MEDIU REINFORCED CONCRETE BOXES WIDENING YALE TO M FUTURE Haikey Creek HK28 2.0 Defer $ 230 LITTLE HAIKEY AT 81ST TO EXISTING STRUCTURE AT MEMORIAL BOND ISSUE OR 81ST STREET $13,470,000 SALES TAX STRUCTURE #51 - REPLACE 14 X Lower Mingo Creek ML10 2.0 Defer $ 195 4 X 90 RB WITH 3 - 10 X 8 X 100' LB1 RCB -- $107,037 BRIDGE - REPLACE EX 2 - 8 X 3 X Lower Mingo Creek ML5 2.0 Defer $ 77 43 WITH ; 2 - 12 X 8 X 43 $36,591 STRUCTURE #9 - REPLACE A 2 - UPSTREAM OF GARNETT ON Lower Mingo Creek ML6A 2.0 Defer $ 81 10 X 4 X 28 WITH A 3 - 12 X 8 -28 RB2 (LITTLE CREEK) RCB -- $35,355 STRUCTURE #41 - AT PINE - MINGO CREEK CONFLUENCE THROUGH PINE MEDIUM/MEDIU Lower Mingo Creek ML8A 2.0 Defer $ 303 REPLACE 16 X 5 X 27' RCB WITH INTERCEPTOR ON RB4 (EAGLE CREEK) M DEFERRED 3 - 12 X 8 X 100 -- $126,304 SEWER $17 MILLION UPSTREAM OF 15TH TO UPPER Lower Middle Mingo END OF OPEN CHANNEL AND MLM2D 2.0 Defer $ 1,459 OPEN CHANNEL Creek 36" RCP FROM 17TH AND CANTON 31ST AND SHERIDAN, WEST TO Upper Middle Mingo JOPLIN, NORTH TO 30TH MUM2B 2.0 Defer $ 1,810 FOLLOWS FMA ALIGNMENT Creek PLACE, WEST TO IRVINGTON, NORTH TO 28TH STREET CULVERT REPLACEMENT AT 114TH PLACE SOUTH PRIVATE South Tulsa ST4B 2.0 Defer $ 102 ON TRIBUTARY D DRIVEWAY SOUTH OF 114TH PLACE TRIBUTARY B TO Vensel VE11A 2.0 Defer $ 506 STORM SEWER DOWNSTREAM FROM 91ST Big Heart Creek BH2 1.9 Defer $ 1,612 0 Cherry/Red Fork CH7B 1.9 Defer $ 1,776 0 Flat Rock Creek FL2A 1.9 Defer $ 1,571 Hartford Ave. bridge MAINSTEM 67TH AVENUE FROM Upper Middle Mingo MUM2D 1.9 Defer $ 1,202 STORM SEWERS MAINSTEM NORTH TO 26TH Creek PLACE 36TH STREET NORTH TO Coal Creek CL1B 1.8 Defer $ 801 LOWER COAL ACQUISITION GILCREASE EXPRESSWAY ON MAINSTEAM Mohawk Blvd. Culvert : Mohawk Flat Rock Creek FL3B 1.8 Defer $ 972 Blvd culvert trib.: Delaware Ave RB-1 (TRIB. A) culvert GRASS-LINED CHANNEL AND FROM PROPOSED Fred Creek FR5 1.8 Defer $ 1,038 EVANSTON CROSSING, GRASSLINED CHANNEL (ORU) EROSION CONTROL MEASURES TO HARVARD
B-9 Appendix B PRIORITIZED STORMWATER CAPITAL PROJECTS
Revised Rankin Description of CIP Project Priority of Watershed Name FMA Priority Cost Location of Project g Value Stormwater Project Link CIP Project ($1,000) CPN branch storm sewer (Rockford Elm Creek EL4 1.8 Defer $ 8,789 to 4th St.): Central Park detention facility REPLACE HARVARD AVENUE Fred Creek FR6 1.7 Defer $ 242 HARVARD ONLY (MAINSTEM) STREET ADD 60" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE NORTH AND OLD JOE 1 TRIBUTARY + OLD Fred Creek FR9 1.7 Defer $ 302 EAST OF 71ST AND LEWIS ON JOE 4 TRIBUTARY OLD JOE 4 TRIBUTARY 150' BRIDGE AT 101ST STREET LITTLE HAIKEY 101ST - TO Haikey Creek HK1 1.7 Defer $ 921 (REPLACEMENT) MINGO REPLACE STRUCTURE #66 -- LOWER MINGO REPLACE EXISTING 2 - 6 X 3 X 70 DOUGLAS CREEK (LB3) FROM Lower Mingo Creek ML14C 1.7 Defer $ 249 SEWER LOW WITH 2 - 10 X 4 X 100 RCB - UPSTREAM OF PINE TO TOP REHABILITATION $71,608 -- AT ADMIRAL PLACE REHAB 500' OF SANDSTONE CHANNEL; ~1,100 LINEAR FEET SANDSTONE CHANNEL (NEW); PEORIA - UPSTREAM ON Crow Creek CR2 1.6 Defer $ 1,969 ~500' CONCRETE CHANNEL AND MAINSTEM TO CONFLUENCE 31; 270' CONCRETE LINED WITH LB0 CHANNEL; REHAB SANDSTONE CHANNEL Cincinnati Ave. detention pond: Flat Rock Creek FL2B 1.6 Defer $ 4,381 MAINSTEM Property Acquisition (4) 4th Pl. culvert repl.: I-44 culvert rplc Cooley Creek CO7 1.5 Defer $ 230 & const dike: 129th E Ave culvert rplc: E. Admiral Pl culvert rplc. N.E. branch storm sewer (Admiral Elm Creek EL5 1.5 Defer $ 917 Park) TWO STORM SEWER SEGMENTS OLD JOE 2 TRIBUTARY AND Fred Creek FR10 1.5 Defer $ 986 IN OJ3 74TH STREET TO 72ND OLD JOE 3 TRIBUTARY STREET C13 -- 2- 10 X 6 REINFORCED Haikey Creek HK10 1.5 Defer $ 361 TRIBUTARY 2 - 3L1 CONCRETE BOXES C27 - MINGO ROAD STRUCTURE UPPER END OF TRIBUTARY 4 Haikey Creek HK5A 1.5 Defer $ 197 2 - 10 X 7 REINFORCED (FROM ABOVE HWY 169 CONCRETE BOXES DETENTION TO TOP) STRUCTURE #56 - REPLACE 2 - Lower Mingo Creek ML12 1.5 Defer $ 229 10 X 5 X 86 RCB WITH 3 - 12 X 8 X LB2 100' RCB -- $126,304 Upper Middle Mingo REPLACE CULVERT SH-2 ON SUNWOOD HILLS TRIBUTARY MUM6H 1.5 Defer $ 179 Creek 145TH EAST AVENUE ABOVE 31ST STREET TRIBUTARY OF SUNWOOD Upper Middle Mingo REPLACE CULVERT SH-7 ON HILLS TRIBUTARY ABOVE MUM6I 1.5 Defer $ 179 Creek 145TH EAST AVENUE CONFLUENCE WITH SUNWOOD HILLS TRIBUTARY UPSTREAM OF EDISON UNION AVENUE STORM SEWERS STORAGE TO DOWNSTREAM Oak Creek OC4A 1.5 Defer $ 441 AND CHANNEL $326,000 OF PROPOSED MARSHALL STORAGE Flat Rock Creek FL3D 1.4 Defer $ 538 Apache Rd. detention pond on RB1 RB-1 (TRIB. A) STORM SEWER FROM PAUL ABOVE PITTSBURG ON Fred Creek FR8 1.4 Defer $ 682 JOHNSON PARK TO TOLEDO MAINSTEM TO VANDALIA AVENUE Flat Rock Creek FL3G 1.4 Defer $ 1,750 AMOS HALL DETENTION POND RB-1 (TRIB. A) UPSTREAM OF GARNETT STRUCTURE #11 - REPLACE A 2 - THROUGH 36TH STREET Lower Mingo Creek ML6B 1.3 Defer $ 249 12 X 2 X 25 RCB WITH 3 - 12 X 8 X NORTH BRIDGE ON RB2 (LITTLE 100 -- $126,304 CREEK) STRUCTURE #13 - 2 - 12 X 3 X 23' UPSTREAM OF 36TH STREET Lower Mingo Creek ML6C 1.3 Defer $ 281 RCB WITH 2 - 10 X 7 X 100' RCB -- NORTH THROUGH 129TH EAST $142,894 AVENUE STRUCTURE #43 - REPLACE 6 X 4 RB TRIBUTARY NORTH OF Lower Mingo Creek ML8C 1.3 Defer $ 272 X 40 CGMP WITH 3 - 10 X 5 X 100 MAINSTEM RB4 TR3 RCB -- $107,037 MAINSTEM THROUGH LEWIS Fred Creek FR3 1.2 Defer $ 727 LEWIS BRIDGE ONLY Flat Rock Creek FL3A 1.2 Defer $ 957 US Hwy. 75 culvert on mainstem RB-1 (TRIB. A) Santa Fe detention pond at Flat Rock Creek FL3E 1.2 Defer $ 1,032 RB-1 (TRIB. A) expressway NW branch storm sewer (Ow.): Elm Creek EL6 1.1 Defer $ 2,326 Nw2 Det. Fac.
B-10 Appendix B PRIORITIZED STORMWATER CAPITAL PROJECTS
Revised Rankin Description of CIP Project Priority of Watershed Name FMA Priority Cost Location of Project g Value Stormwater Project Link CIP Project ($1,000)
STORM SEWER FROM INDEPENDENCE TO UPPER END ANDERSON 2000/2001 Coal Creek CL4E 1.0 Defer $ 3,844 RB2 ABOVE INDEPENDENCE SOUTH OF EXPRESSWAY $2.57M WATERLINE CONSTRUCTION - DIVERSION OF RB1 TO RB2
Cooley Creek CO13 1.0 Defer $ 156 E. Admiral Pl. culvert replacement Dirty Butter Creek DB11 1.0 Defer $ 1,001 STORM SEWER DB11 6 X 6 REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX AT HARVARD AND 60" Fred Creek FR11 1.0 Defer $ 418 SOUTHWOOD TRIBUTARY REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE AT 82ND STREET 74TH STREET CROSSING AND Fred Creek FR16 1.0 Defer $ 433 URBANA TRIBUTARY SOUTHRIDGE DETENTION STRUCTURE #26 - REPLACE 3 17 Lower Mingo Creek ML7C 1.0 Defer $ 506 X 6 X 28 RCB WITH 3 - 12 X 10 X 100 RCB -- $254,748 Lower Middle Mingo ALONG 15TH STREET FROM MLM2G 1.0 Defer $ 1,435 8 X 4 RCB Creek CREEK AT 15TH TO THE WEST
Lower Middle Mingo TIES INTO JONES CREEK MLM3C 1.0 Defer $ 91 6 X 6 RCB ND 4 X 5 RCB Creek UPSTREAM OF 68TH E. PLACE
WIDEN GARNETT Lower Middle Mingo CONFLUENCE TO UPSTREAM MLM6A 1.0 Defer $ 409 BRIDGE AT GARNETT ROAD/I244 - 11TH -- MED/MED Creek OF GARNETT $5,580,000 TRIBUTARY B AT HARVARD 81ST STREET Vensel VE11B 1.0 Defer $ 166 81ST STREET CROSSING ONLY HARVARD TO YALE SOUTH YALE AVENUE Vensel VE8 1.0 Defer $ 224 TRIBUTARY H CROSSING UPSTREAM OF LEWIS TO Fred Creek FR4 0.9 Defer $ 2,930 CONCRETE LINED CHANNEL UPPER END OF CHANNEL Upper Middle Mingo 31ST STREET SOUTH TO MUM2F 0.9 Defer $ 1,152 BOX CULVERTS Creek EXPRESSWAY UPGRADE LEWIS Crow Creek CR15A 0.8 Defer $ 814 REPLACE BRIDGE LEFT BANK 1 AT LEWIS ONLY LOW/LOW AVE BA-I44 STRUCTURE #60 - REPLACE 3 - DOUGLAS CREEK LB3 FROM LOWER MINGO Lower Mingo Creek ML14A 0.8 Defer $ 571 10 X 12 X 70 WITH 3 - 12 X 12 X MOUTH TO UPSTREAM OF DOUGLAS SEWER LOW 100' RCB -- $256,889 MINGO REHABILITATION HIGH/HIGH, CONSTRUCTION 36TH STREET NORTH CROSSING MAINSTEM TO 36TH STREET PORT ROAD Coal Creek CL1A 0.8 Defer $ 449 ENGR. 94 BOND, IMPROVEMENTS NORTH EXTENSION R/W 96 SALES TAX STRUCTURE #25 - REPLACE 2 - RB3 - FROM UPSTREAM OF Lower Mingo Creek ML7B 0.8 Defer $ 508 17 X 6 X 28' RCB WITH 3 - 12 X 12 GARNETT TO UPSTREAM OF X 100' RCB -- $256,889 APACHE NEW BOX CULVERT (OTHER 1/2 South Tulsa ST4A 0.7 Defer $ 4,482 OF EXISTING) FROM ARKANSAS PICKS UP TRIBUTARY B RIVER TO 117TH STREET STRUCTURE #18 - REPLACE 7 X RB3 - QUARRY CREEK MOUTH Lower Mingo Creek ML7A 0.7 Defer $ 250 5.5 X 47 CGMP WITH 3 - 12 X 12 X TO UPSTREAM SIDE OF 47 -- $120,738 GARNETT ROAD STORM SEWER FROM 26TH PLACE TO 28TH STREET Upper Middle Mingo TRIBUTARY DRAINING TO 72" MUM2E 0.7 Defer $ 248 THROUGH YARDS ALONG Creek RCP ALONG 66TH EAST PLACE APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT OF 66TH EAST AVENUE Elm Creek EL8 0.6 Defer $ 1,819 OC branch storm sewer (11th St.) $4.590 MILLION Lower Middle Mingo 2 - 7 X 6 RCB, 2 - 6 X 6, 1 - 7 X 6, 1 - UPSTREAM OF 21ST TO TOP SHERIDAN AT 21ST MLM3B 0.6 Defer $ 517 DEFER Creek 5 X 5, 54" RCP AND 48" RCP ON JONES MAINSTEM TO 31ST Upper Middle Mingo LOW/LOW MUM3 0.6 Defer $ 8,128 0 Creek LEWIS DOWNSTREAM - LEFT BANK 1 TO Crow Creek CR14 0.5 Defer $ 360 CHANNEL RESTORATION DOWNSTREAM OF LEWIS STRUCTURE #15 - REPLACE 5-66" DIAMETER CGMP WITH 3-12 X 8 X 2- RCB -- $25,261; STRUCTURE UPSTREAM OF 129TH EAST Lower Mingo Creek ML6D 0.5 Defer $ 222 #16 - REPLACE 3 84" DIAMETER AVENUE TO TOP OF RB2 CGMP WITH 3-96" X 100' DIAMETER RCP $96,840 NORTH DETENTION POND ON Upper Middle Mingo MUM6E 0.5 Defer $ 930 EASTLAND ACRES TRIBUTARY EASTLAND ACRES TRIBUTARY Creek (CULVERT IS OK) SUNWOOD HILLS TRIBUTARY Upper Middle Mingo BRIDGE SH-1 REPLACE EXISTING FROM CONFLUENCE WITH MUM6G 0.5 Defer $ 179 Creek 8 X 5.5 WITH 2 - 10 X 8 BROOKHOLLOW CREEK TO UPSTREAM OF 31ST
B-11 Appendix B PRIORITIZED STORMWATER CAPITAL PROJECTS
Revised Rankin Description of CIP Project Priority of Watershed Name FMA Priority Cost Location of Project g Value Stormwater Project Link CIP Project ($1,000) Upper Mingo Creek MU1D 0.4 Defer $ 1,419 Memorial Dr. Crossing SHERIDAN LOW/LOW $4.8 DOWNSTREAM OF SHERIDAN Fry Ditch No. 2 FD3A 0.4 Defer $ 647 SHERIDAN ROAD WIDENING 91ST - MILLION TO UPSTREAM OF SHERIDAN 101ST DEFERRED Detention pond east of 145th E. Ave.: 21st St S Culvert Addition: Cooley Creek CO11 0.4 Defer $ 1,907 15th St culvert replacement: 145th E Ave Culvert Replacement GRASS-LINED CHANNEL FROM INTERSECTION OF 121ST AND South Tulsa ST1A 0.4 Defer $ 2,049 SHERIDAN TO NEW FRY 2 CHANNEL Adams Creek AD1 0.3 Defer $ 2,549 REGIONAL DETENTION ADAMS CREEK LB1 FROM CONFLUENCE WITH Fry Ditch No. 2 FD5 0.3 Defer $ 281 COMPLETED MAINSTEM TO UPSTREAM OF LB1TL1 Haikey Creek HK22 0.3 Defer $ 250 0 2-10L1 STRUCTURE #46 - REPLACE 6 X 4 UPSTREAM OF PINE TO Lower Mingo Creek ML8B 0.3 Defer $ 277 X 40 RCB WITH 3 - 10 X 5 X 100 -- ROGERS COUNTY (145TH EAST $107,037 AVENUE) Lower Middle Mingo DETENTION POND FROM OLD UPSTREAM OF GARNETT ROAD MLM6B 0.3 Defer $ 794 Creek MDW REPORT TO TOP 91ST AND YALE YALE 81ST TO 91ST INTERSECTION 2 YALE CROSSINGS AND 91ST Vensel VE10 0.3 Defer $ 872 TRIBUTARY E FY 1999 UN-FUNDED FY 1999 UN- STREET CROSSING HIGH/HIGH FUNDED HIGH/HIGH ALL OF TRIBUTARY B AND OSWEGO CROSSING EAST 80TH Vensel VE11C 0.3 Defer $ 258 TRIBUTARY B WEST ABOVE STREET SOUTH CROSSING 91ST STREET GRASS-LINED CHANNEL AND 1998 Hager Creek HG3A 0.3 Defer $ 1,103 HG3 TO DETENTION POND WATERLINE FLOOD WARNING SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION DOWNSTREAM OF 101ST TO Fry Ditch No. 2 FD2A 0.3 Defer $ 455 101ST AND CHANNEL DOWNSTREAM OF SHERIDAN GRASS-LINED CHANNEL, DROP South Tulsa ST5B 0.2 Defer $ 3,202 STRUCTURE AND CROSSING AT DRAINS TRIBUTARY G AND E SANDUSKY?
11th St. S. culvert replacement: E. Cooley Creek CO5 0.2 Defer $ 611 Admi ral Pl culvert replacement: I- 44 culvert replacement & const dike
CONNECTION TO FRY CREEKS South Tulsa ST3A 0.2 Defer $ 1,064 CHANNEL AT ~ 126TH STREET - GRASS-LINED CHANNEL
DIRTY BUTTER MAINSTEM ACQUISITION OF 4 HOUSES, FROM CONFLUENCE WITH FRC GRASS-LINED CHANNEL TO CONFLUENCE WITH TRIB. OLD CITYWIDE Dirty Butter Creek DB1 0.1 Defer $ 1,481 TRANSITIONS TO NEW BRIDGE, RB1 - NOTE: BUILDINGS HAVE PRIORITY #101 NEW BRIDGE AT 36TH ST. BEEN REMVED EXCEPT ONE NORTH MOBILE HOME.
91ST - 101ST LOW/LOW $4.8 UPSTREAM OF SHERIDAN TO Fry Ditch No. 2 FD3B 0.1 Defer $ 1,375 MILL CREEK POND CHANNEL SHERIDAN MILLION DOWNSTREAM OF 91ST WIDENING DEFERRED P8 - MODIFY SHERIDAN ROAD Haikey Creek HK25 0.1 Defer $ 1,373 TRIBUTARY 2 - 10R1 DETENTION POND GRASS-LINED CHANNEL South Tulsa ST2A 0.1 Defer $ 1,729 ARKANSAS RIVER TO 131ST TO 121ST
TOTAL DEFERRED PROJECTS $300,844
B-12
Appendix C: Hazard Mitigation Capital Improvements Projects Appendix C: City of Tulsa Capital Projects for Inclusion in Hazard Mitigation Grant Funding Cost Estimate FY No. Department Project Title (in Thousands) Priority Funding
General Hazard Mitigation Measures
20 Telecommun/Info Services 800 MHz Radio System Upgrade $1,750 H FY03 30 Telecommun/Info Services Network Security Enhancements $350 H FY03 31 Telecommun/Info Services New Public Safety Response Facility $2,500 H FY03 32 Telecommun/Info Services PSSI/HP Computer Dispatch Upgrade $345 H FY03 277 Water Projects UIS Backup Computer System $1,400 H FY05 303 Sanitary Sewer Projects Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring $1,400 H FY03 34 Telecommun/Info Services Redundant Radio System Zone Controller $225 H FY04 35 Telecommun/Info Services Twenty Channel Emergency Commun System $670 H FY05 33 TelecommunIS Projects Public Works 800 MHz Flowline Radio Upgrade $615 H FY05 19 Telecommun/Info Services 800 MHz Catoosa Receiver Site $570 M None
Flood Mitigation
58 Mohawk Park & Redbud ValleyImp Redbud Valley Nature Center $100 H FY04 65 Youth & Adults Sports Facility Firecracker Stormwater Detention Site Facilities Dev $140 H FY04 316 Flood Control 15th Street & BA Expressway Detention Basin $3,830 H FY04 321 Flood Control Bridle Trails Detention- Channel Erosion $2,000 H FY04 324 Flood Control Celia Clinton Detention & Storm Sewer- Coal Creek $2,200 H FY04 325 Flood Control Central High School Channel $280 H FY04 327 Flood Control Channel Erosion & Stabilization $4,375 H FY04 330 Flood Control City Master Plan & Master Drain Plan Updates $500 H FY04 331 Flood Control Concrete channel Rehab, Various Locations $7,025 H FY04 333 Flood Control Crow Creek Channel Rehabilitation & Culvert Replace $7,850 H FY04 334 Flood Control Crow Creek Pedestrian Bridge & Stormwater Improvements $900 H FY04 335 Flood Control Crow Creek Travis Park Storm Sewer, Inlets and Valves $4,800 H FY04 340 Flood Control Elm Street East 6th Street Drainage Improvements $9,000 H FY04 341 Flood Control Flatrock 3400 North Lansing Place Channel $1,200 H FY04 342 Flood Control Flood Plain Acquisition- City Wide $11,000 H FY04 343 Flood Control Fred Creek – Evanston Ave. Bridge and Channel at 76th Pl. $1,400 H FY04 344 Flood Control Fred Creek Channel, Culverts, Rehab., Maintenance, Phase II $1,500 H FY04 351 Flood Control Harvey Young Detention (Upper Brookhollow, Tupelo) $610 H FY04 363 Flood Control Mingo – Moeller Heights Creek LB7-2R Channel Rehab $1,520 H FY04 382 Flood Control Stormwater Facility Repair and Construction $2,000 H FY04 388 Flood Control Urban Lake Maintenance $2,000 H FY04
C-1 Cost Estimate FY No. Department Project Title (in Thousands) Priority Funding 389 Flood Control Urgent Small Drainage Projects $4,320 H FY04 390 Flood Control Vensel Creek Erosion Control $5,000 H FY04 42 General Parks Sites Renovation Drainage Problem Corrections $1,090 H FY05 329 Flood Control Cherokee Village Relief Drainage System $5,125 H FY05 336 Flood Control Downtown Storm Drainage System Reconstruction $12,800 H FY05 353 Flood Control Jones Storm Sewer Channel & Bridge Replacement $1,000 H FY05 357 Flood Control Langenheim Park Detention Phase I Channel $3,000 H FY05 361 Flood Control Mill Creek Pond Channel –Fry Ditch #2 $1,310 H FY05 369 Flood Control Red Fork Creek Detention Basin- W 48th & SW Boulevard $1,170 H FY05 374 Flood Control Sheridan and 54th Stormwater Detention Facility $815 H FY05 47 General Parks Sites Renovation Park Dept Pond Dredging & Cleaning $150 H FY06 71 Land Acquisition for Parks Land Acquisition for Parks $4,690 H FY06 312 Flood Control 11th & Sheridan Storm Sewer Rehab $7,240 H FY06 313 Flood Control 15th and Fulton Storm Sewer & Drain Imp $1,150 H FY06 314 Flood Control 21st Street Detention Basin $1,730 H FY06 328 Flood Control C Page Blvd Lower Basin Storm Sewer & Det Imp $21,500 H FY06 373 Flood Control Shadow Mountain Detention Basin Enlargement $600 H FY06 376 Flood Control South Tulsa Drainage Improvements $3,390 H FY06 319 Flood Control Bridge & Culvert Replacements $6,965 H None 384 Flood Control Triad Sewer and Channel (21st and BA Underpass) $310 H None 391 Flood Control Woodland View Stormwater Detention Facility $2,480 M FY04 315 Flood Control 26th & Louisville Detention, Upper Joe Creek $1,450 M None 317 Flood Control 37th & Memorial Storm Sewer $800 M None 320 Flood Control Bridge Improvements – Little Joe Mainstem $895 M None 322 Flood Control Burlington Detention & Crossing Improv- Coal Crk $1,575 M None 326 Flood Control Central Park South Detention & Storm Sewer (Elm) $3,900 M None 332 Flood Control Crosstown Detention & Stormsewer Improv- Elm Creek $2,815 M None 337 Flood Control Eastland Mall Relief Drainage System (Adjacent Areas) $430 M None 338 Flood Control Edison Street Culvert Enlargement $140 M None 346 Flood Control Fry Ditch #2 Bank Stabilization & Erosion Control $6,000 M None 347 Flood Control Garden City Drainage Improvements Phase 2 $2,000 M None 348 Flood Control Gun Boat Detention Elm Creek $1,190 M None 349 Flood Control Harlow HR3 Levees , Culverts and Detention $4,035 M None 350 Flood Control Harlow Storage TR 2 Harlow Creek $540 M None 352 Flood Control Joe Creek Channel Rehabilitation , Phase II $2,000 M None 354 Flood Control Jones Tributary Channel & Crossing Improvement $1,665 M None 355 Flood Control LaFortune Park Storm Water Detention Facility $1,025 M None 356 Flood Control Langenheim Detention and Storm Sewer- Upper Joe Creek $5,465 M None 358 Flood Control Maxwell Park Storm Sewer, Channel- Coal Creek $18,360 M None 359 Flood Control Mayfair Stormwater Pump Station- Parkview $500 M None
C-2 Cost Estimate FY No. Department Project Title (in Thousands) Priority Funding 360 Flood Control Mayo Plaza Drainage Relief System $1,640 M None 362 Flood Control Mill Creek Storm Sewer and Bridges (West of McClure Park) $7,535 M None 365 Flood Control Mooser Creek Channel and I-44 Culvert $3,400 M None 366 Flood Control Nickle Creek Property Acquisition $160 M None 367 Flood Control Parkview Creek Expressway Storage $425 M None 370 Flood Control Rockbridge Storm Sewer – Crow Creek $290 M None 371 Flood Control Rolling Hills Channel - Spunky Creek $1,870 M None 372 Flood Control Roosevelt and Edison Street Detention – Oak Creek $1,210 M None 375 Flood Control South Haven Floodwall & Culvert Improve – Mooser Crk $1,320 M None 377 Flood Control Steel Companies Channel Improvement- Mooser Crk $660 M None 378 Flood Control Storm Sewer Improvements – 58th & South Haven Place $1,230 M None 379 Flood Control Storm Sewer Improvements – 72nd East Avenue and 55th $1,170 M None 380 Flood Control Storm Sewer Improvements – 73rd E. Avenue and 58th $2,240 M None 381 Flood Control Storm Sewer Improvements – S. Irvington Avenue $750 M None 383 Flood Control Thornton YMCA Stormwater Detention Facility $1,260 M None 385 Flood Control TU Phase 1/2 Detention, S. Sewer/Crossing/ Imp Coal Crk $12,425 M None 386 Flood Control TU Phasse 3 Detention, Stormsewer, & Crossing – Coal Crk $12,425 M None 387 Flood Control Upper Brook Hollow Detention Sites $2,900 M None 392 Flood Control Yorktown Apts. Diversion Channel and Stormsewer $690 M None 318 Flood Control 56th Street Culvert Replacement & Channel $500 L None 323 Flood Control Cascia Hall Diversion Channel & Storm Sewer $470 L None 339 Flood Control Eight Acres Bank Restoration $270 L None 345 Flood Control Fred Creek Richmond Trib Drainage Channel Improvements $225 L None 364 Flood Control Mockingbird Lake Dredging $335 L None 368 Flood Control Perryman Ditch I-44 Storm Sewer $10,350 L None
C-3 Cost Estimate FY No. Department Project Title (in Thousands) Priority Funding Drought Mitigation
250 Water Projects Water Quality Plan, All Basins $4,550 H FY03 254 Water Projects AB Jewell Plant Maintenance & Improvements $5,885 H FY03 259 Water Projects 16” Main – Pine Harvard to Hudson $895 H FY03 276 Water Projects Unserved Areas $9,350 H FY03 278 Water Projects Water System Site Improvements $150 H FY03 261 Water Projects 48” Line – Mowhawk WTP on Sheridan C & L $3,525 H FY04 243 Water Projects Grand River Flow Line Phase 1(Salina Pumpback) $82,000 H FY05 257 Water Projects 12” WaterLoop – 76th to 96th Street North $465 H FY05 275 WaterProjects Turkey Mountain Secondary Service Area $2,100 H FY05 258 Water Projects 16” Main Edison Elwood to 65th W. Ave $1,800 H FY06 279 Water Projects Water Vault Safety Upgrades $100 H FY06 249 Water Projects Tiawah Tunnel Insert $4,000 H FY07 252 Water Projects AB Jewell Plant 30 MGD Expansion $43,125 H FY07 260 Water Projects 24” Water Loop Fair Oaks Annexation $7,900 H FY07 273 Water Projects Second Tank – Southside (Secondary System) $1,400 H FY07 255 Water Projects AB Jewell Plant Sludge Landfill $2,220 M None 262 WaterProjects 48” Main 51st & Memorial to Sheridan Tank System $6,060 $6,060 M None 244 Water Projects Grand River Flow Line Phase II (US 69 to AB Jewell) $87,330 L None 251 Water Projects AB Jewell Plant 15 MGD Expansion $21,565 L None 256 Water Projects AB Jewell & Mohawk Plants Chloramine Conv $300 L None 263 Water Projects 60” Line – 21st Street from AB Jewell (Clean&Line)$1,090 $1,090 L None
Dam Failures Mitigation
247 Water Projects Spanivaw and Eucha Dam Repairs $800 H FY03
Hazardous Materials Events Mitigation
15 Fire Projects Hazardous Materials Protection Complex $3,500 H None
C-4
Appendix D: City of Tulsa Critical Facilities This page removed due to sensitive nature of information.
For more information, contact information can be located on page xviii.
Appendix E: City of Tulsa Government Buildings Appendix E: City of Tulsa Government Buildings
Type of Facility City of Tulsa Administration Name Address City Phone ZipCode POC POCTitle POCPhone City Of Tulsa (City Hall) 200 Civic Center Plaza Tulsa (918) 596-2100 74103 Tulsa Convention Center 100 Civic Center Tulsa (918) 596-7177 74103 Tulsa Performing Arts Center 110 E 2nd St Tulsa (918) 596-7122 74103 Type of Facility Tulsa International Airport Name Address City Phone ZipCode POC POCTitle POCPhone Tulsa International Airport 7777 E Apache Tulsa (918) 838-5000 74115 Type of Facility Public Works Name Address City Phone ZipCode POC POCTitle POCPhone Chemical Storage Building 2317 S Jackson Ave Tulsa Equipment Maintenance 5625 S Garnett Rd Tom Graham (918) 596-9842 Equipment Management 1720 Newblock Park Dr Tulsa (918) 596-9825 Jim Don Cheek (918) 596-9825 Field Customer Services 2445 S Jackson Ave Tulsa (918) 596-9777 Fuel Facility 2317 S Jackson Ave Tulsa Portable Building 2317 S Jackson Ave Tulsa Satellite Fuel Station 1747 S 101st E Ave Tulsa Storage Shed 2317 S Jackson Ave Tulsa Street Dept Garage/Offices 5675 S Garnett Rd Tulsa Darren Stefanek (918) 527-0233 Structural Maintenance 1712 Charles Page Blvd Tulsa (918) 596-2496 Ric Brown (918) 519-7700 Surplus Facility 2317 S Jackson Ave Tulsa Tire Shop 2317 S Jackson Ave Tulsa W&M South Yard Storage Building 2317 S Jackson Ave Tulsa W&M South Yard Office/stock Building 2317 S Jackson Ave Tulsa Warehouse/Materials Stockroom 2317 S Jackson Ave Tulsa Water District Office/Warehouse 5605 S Garnett Rd Tulsa (918) 252-0669 Eric Lee (918) 527-0197 Type of Facility Water Supply & Distribution Name Address City Phone ZipCode POC POCTitle POCPhone Bird Creek #2 Pump Station 17111 E 46th St N Tulsa Jim Tweet (918) 591-4570
Monday, October 28, 2002 E-1 Bird Creek 5mg Storage Tank 17111 E 46th St N Bishop Tract Detention Basin 3600 S 103rd E Ave Grand River Pump Station # 1 Waterline Rd - 7 To 8 Mi. W of St (918) 369-5961 Dean Nichols (918) 261-9171 Lake Eucha Offices Jay (918) 596-9924 Jerry Youngblood (918) 253-8601 Lake Spavinaw Bldgs & Grounds Jay Otis Mcdonald (918) 261-9174 Oologah Pump Station Hwy 88 At Oologah Dam Permit Office West of Hwy 10-59 - 5 Mi. S of Ja Permit Office/water Plant/Lab/Shop 401 E Lake Ave Reservoir Manager Residence 402 E Lake Ave Residence - Dam Operator ~ 8 Mi. Due West of Boat Basin Sampling Station Ind. Pre-treatment E 54th Stat Mingo Creek Tulsa (918) 591-4379 Scott Vanloo (918) 261-9142 Sampling Station Ind. Pre-treatment 58th St & Mingo Creek Tulsa Scott Vanloo (918) 261-9142 Sewage Pump Station 16th Pl. & West Bank River -- Ri Tulsa Shop Area East of Hwy 10-59 - 5 Mi. S of Ja Storm Water Pump Station 5665 N 105th E Ave Storm Water Storage 5665 N 105th E Ave Tower Site Tiawa, OK Tower Site Top of FNB Tulsa Tower Site Bristow, OK Tower Site Top of FNB - Fire, Police, Comm Tulsa Tower Site Spavinaw, Ok Tower Site 11707 East 31st St Tower Site 7310 East 71st St Tulsa Tower Site 21st & Louisville Water Tank And Tulsa Tower Site Eucha Lake Tower Site 7429 S Lewis Ave Tulsa Tower Site 14333 East 11th St Tower Site 2404 West 51st St N Tower Site - Communications 6650 E 61st Tulsa Tower Site - Spavinaw 6 Miles W Spavinaw Tower Site/Building - Pryor 2080 S New Haven Type of Facility Waste Water Collection & Treatment Name Address City Phone ZipCode POC POCTitle POCPhone 501 Activated Sludge Facilities 5665 N 105th E Ave
Monday, October 28, 2002 E-2 502 Activated Sludge Fac (11 MGD) 5665 N 105th E Ave 601/602 Activated Sludge Fac (21 MGD 5665 N 105th E Ave Administrative Bldg. & Operations 5665 N 105th E Ave Airport Lift Station 5665 N 105th E Ave Tulsa Jim Tweet (918) 591-4557 Cherokee Lift Station 5702 E 66th St N Tulsa Bill Fall-Leaf (918) 261-2901 Chlorination Facilities 5665 N 105th E Ave DAF Building 5665 N 105th E Ave Dechlorination Facilities 5665 N 105th E Ave Excess Flow Diversion Facilities 5665 N 105th E Ave Haikey Creek Lift Station 11602 E 151st St Headworks Building 5665 N 105th E Ave Maintenance Building 5665 N 105th E Ave Multifunctional Laboratory 5665 N 105th E Ave Northside Wastewater Treatment Plant 5655 N 105th E Ave Tulsa Jim Tweet (918) 591-4570 Return Flow Pump Station 5665 N 105th E Ave Secondary Digesters 5665 N 105th E Ave Septic/Vactor Disposal Facility 5665 N 105th E Ave Sewage Lift Station (Central) 5111 N 220th E Ave Sewage Lift Station (North) 6420 N 213th E Ave Sewage Lift Station (South) 4821 N 211th E Ave Sewage Pump Station - Abandoned 22nd & Olympia Tulsa Sewer Base Lift Station 4235 N 93rd E Ave Tulsa Sewer Lift Station 4203 1/2 N Evanston Tulsa Bill Fall-Leaf (918) 261-2901 Sewer Lift Station 21st & Riverside Tulsa (918) 591-4226 Bill Fall-Leaf (918) 261-2901 Sewer Lift Station 67th & Gary Tulsa Sewer Lift Station 76th St N & Trenton Turley (918) 669-6101 Bill Fall-Leaf (918) 261-2901 Sewer Lift Station 2220 E 66th St N Turley (918) 669-6101 Bill Fall-Leaf (918) 261-2901 Sewer Pump Station 34 S 119th E Ave Southside Lift Station (Raw Sewage Pu 5300 S Elwood Ave Tulsa Type of Facility Parks Department Name Address City Phone ZipCode POC POCTitle POCPhone Adams Park 1627 N Atlanta Pl Tulsa Admiral Park 29 N Victor Ave Tulsa Alfred E Aaronson Park 4807 S 87th E Ave Tulsa
Monday, October 28, 2002 E-3 Alsuma Soccer Complex 9801 E 51st St Tulsa Archer Park (Pool Bldg) 2831 E Archer St Tulsa (918) 838-9479 Bales Park (Restroom) 5801 S Union Ave Tulsa (918) 446-6880 Benedict Park 1630 E 12th St Tulsa Benton Park 1167 N 66th E Ave Tulsa Berry Park (Pool) 5002 N Wheeling Ave Tulsa (918) 591-4259 Bishop Park 3342 S 101st E Ave Tulsa Boeing Park 9311 E 2nd St Tulsa Boots Adams Park 6441 S 76th E Ave Tulsa Braden Park - Shelter w/ Restrooms 5036 E 7th St Tulsa Bullette Park 1001 E King St Tulsa Carbondale Park 2802 W 48th St Tulsa Carl Smith Sports Complex 17120 E 21st St Tulsa (918) 234-3254 Max Wiens Cathedral Square 22 W 10th St Tulsa Centennial Park & Central Senior Cente 1028 E 6th St Tulsa (918) 596-1455 Challenger 7 Park (Pool) 3909 W 41st St Tulsa (918) 591-4493 Clinton Park 3121 E Queen Pl Tulsa Council Oak Park 1750 S Cheyenne Ave Tulsa Cousins Park 121st & S Yale Ave Tulsa Cowan Park 10901 E 19th St Tulsa Creek Stickball Park 18th & Cheyenne Ave Tulsa Creek Turnpike Trail 9599 S Lakewood Ave Tulsa Forche Field Baseball Stadium 1712 Charles Page Blvd Tulsa (918) 596-2542 Dale Cox (918) 646-0157 Gilcrease Museum 1400 Gilcrease Museum Rd Tulsa (918) 596-2700 74127 Haikey Creek Park 11300 S Garnett Rd Tulsa (918) 369-5998 Kevin Derrick (918) 521-7724 Hall Park & Community Center 3340 N Delaware Ave Tulsa (918) 591-4152 Heller Park & Theatre 5328 S Wheeling Ave Tulsa (918) 746-5065 Hicks Park & Community Center 3443 S Mingo Rd Tulsa (918) 591-4379 Rhonda Freiner (918) 669-6355 Hunter Park (Shelter) 5804 E 91st St Tulsa L. C. Clark Park & Theatre 11440 E Admiral Pl Tulsa (918) 669-4655 Manion Park & Dramatic Arts 3003 E 56th St Tulsa (918) 747-9494 Nancy Morgan Mohawk Park Shelters 5701 E 36th St N Tulsa (918) 596-7275 Karl Miller (918) 646-0157 Mohawk Golf Course 5223 E 41st St Tulsa (918) 425-6871 74115 Ken Idleman (918) 591-4160 Newblock Park - Bathhouse & Junior P 1712 W Charles Page Blvd Tulsa Newblock Park - Concession #1 1712 W Charles Page Blvd Tulsa
Monday, October 28, 2002 E-4 Newblock Park - Concession #2 1712 W Charles Page Blvd Tulsa Newblock Park - Garage 1712 W Charles Page Blvd Tulsa Newblock Park - Metal Storage Shed 1712 W Charles Page Blvd Tulsa Newblock Park - Restroom #1 1712 W Charles Page Blvd Tulsa Oxley Nature Center 6700 Mohawk Blvd Tulsa (918) 669-6644 Bob Jennings (918) 646-0157 Page Belcher Golf Course 6666 S Union Ave Tulsa (918) 446-1529 George Glen (918) 446-7332 Page Belcher Golf Course - Cart Storag 6666 S Union Tulsa Page Belcher Golf Course - Maint. Buil 6666 S Union Tulsa Page Belcher Golf Course - Rest Facilit 6666 S Union Tulsa Tulsa Zoo 5701 E 36th St N Tulsa (918) 669-6600 74115 Larry Nunley (918) 646-0157 Whiteside Park & Community Center 4009 S Pittsburg Ave Tulsa (918) 746-5040 Suzie Marcum Woodward Greenhouse 2324 S Rockford Ave Tulsa (918) 596-7275 Mark Linholm (918) 746-5157 Type of Facility Fire Department Name Address City Phone ZipCode POC POCTitle POCPhone Communication Area For Fire Dept 1712 S Phoenix Ave Tulsa Fire Dept Dog Kennel 1760 Newblock Park Dr Tulsa Fire Station #9 1420 Charles Page Blvd Tulsa Garage & Fuel Facility 1720 Newblock Park Dr Tulsa Tulsa Fire Department #10 508 E Pine St Tulsa (918) 596-1710 74106 Tulsa Fire Department #11 5009 E 15th St Tulsa (918) 669-6151 74112 Tulsa Fire Department #12 3123 W 40th St Tulsa (918) 591-4412 74107 Tulsa Fire Department #13 345 S 41st W Ave Tulsa (918) 596-1713 74127 Tulsa Fire Department #14 3602 S Lewis Ave Tulsa (918) 746-5114 74105 Tulsa Fire Department #15 4168 E Admiral Pl Tulsa (918) 669-6168 74115 Tulsa Fire Department #16 1401 N Lewis Ave Tulsa (918) 596-1716 74110 Tulsa Fire Department #17 1351 N Sheridan Rd Tulsa (918) 669-6163 74115 Tulsa Fire Department #18 4802 S Peoria Ave Tulsa (918) 746-5118 74105 Tulsa Fire Department #19 509 E 56th St N Tulsa (918) 591-4019 74126 Tulsa Fire Department #2 524 W Edison Tulsa (918) 596-1702 74103 Tulsa Fire Department #21 4606 E 31st St Tulsa (918) 746-5121 74135 Tulsa Fire Department #22 616 S 73rd E Ave Tulsa (918) 669-6158 74112 Tulsa Fire Department #23 4348 E 51st St Tulsa (918) 596-1723 74135 Tulsa Fire Department #24 3520 N Peoria Ave Tulsa (918) 591-4224 74106 Tulsa Fire Department #25 7419 E 42nd Pl Tulsa (918) 669-6325 74145
Monday, October 28, 2002 E-5 Tulsa Fire Department #26 2404 W 51st St Tulsa (918) 591-4426 74107 Tulsa Fire Department #27 11707 E 31st St Tulsa (918) 669-6327 74146 Tulsa Fire Department #28 7310 E 71st Street Tulsa (918) 252-7012 74133 Tulsa Fire Department #29 7429 S Lewis Ave Tulsa (918) 596-1729 74136 Tulsa Fire Department #3 62 N Utica Ave Tulsa (918) 596-1703 74110 Tulsa Fire Department #30 14333 E 11th St Tulsa (918) 669-6450 74108 Tulsa Fire Department #31 3002 N Mingo Tulsa (918) 669-6173 74116 Tulsa Fire Department #32 6010 E 91st St Tulsa (918) 596-1732 74137 Tulsa Fire Department #4 524 W 12th St Tulsa (918) 596-1704 74119 Tulsa Fire Department #5 102 E 18th St Tulsa (918) 596-1705 74119 Tulsa Fire Department #51 (Airport) Taxiway Echo & Bravo Tulsa (918) 838-5043 74116 Tulsa Fire Department #6 7212 S Union Ave Tulsa (918) 591-4406 74132 Tulsa Fire Department #7 601 S Lewis Ave Tulsa (918) 596-1707 74104 Tulsa Fire Department Hazardous Mtls 1420 W Charles Page Blvd Tulsa (918) 596-1254 74127 Mike Mallory (918) 596-1228 Tulsa Fire Department Hdqtrs 411 S Frankfort Tulsa (918) 596-9444 74120 Allen Lacoy (918) 596-1790 Tulsa Fire Department Supply 1790 Newblock Park Dr Tulsa (918) 596-1230 74127 Tulsa Fire Department Training 1760 Newblock Park Dr Tulsa (918) 596-9411 74127 Tulsa Fire Dept (Alarm Office/tower) 1010 E 8th St Tulsa (918) 596-9977 Type of Facility Police Department Name Address City Phone ZipCode POC POCTitle POCPhone Fuel Island - UDN 3411 N Columbia Tulsa Fuel Island - UDSW 7515 S Riverside Tulsa Police Special Investigations Confidential Tulsa Tulsa Police Department (Courts Bldg) 600 Civic Center Tulsa (918) 596-2100 74103 Tulsa Police Department Training Facili 6066 E 66th St N Tulsa (918) 591-4500 74117 Tulsa Police Dept ( North Div) 3411 N Columbia Tulsa (918) 591-4100 74110 Walter Evans Tulsa Police Dept (East Div) 10122 E 11th St Tulsa (918) 669-6000 74128 Tulsa Police Dept (Southwest Div) 7515 Riverside Dr Tulsa (918) 596-1100 74136 Tulsa Police Dept Seized Vehicle Facilit 1326 E Mohawk Blvd Tulsa Tulsa Police Offices Lower Level Cente Type of Facility EMSA Name Address City Phone ZipCode POC POCTitle POCPhone EMSA 1417 N Lansing Ave Tulsa (918) 596-3003
Monday, October 28, 2002 E-6
Appendix F: Hazard Mitigation Committee Meeting Agendas
SPECIAL MEETING
NOTICE AND AGENDA
CITIZEN HAZARD MITIGATION COMMITTEE
Wednesday, October 31, 2001
City Hall, Room 1101, 9:00 a.m.
Report, discuss, and take appropriate action, if any, on the following:
1. Call to Order
2. Introductions
3. Video - Tulsa Floods
4. Briefing on Hazard Mitigation Planning Program - Ron Flanagan
5. CRS (Community Rating System) Reverification - French Wetmore
6. (Hazard Mitigation) Project Impact - Gaylon Pinc
7. Schedule of Meeting Dates
8. Election of Officers
9. Public Comments
10. Date of the Next Meeting
11. Adjourn
F–1
Hazard Mitigation Staff Meeting Wednesday, October 31, 2001 City Hall, Room 201, 10:30 a.m. Draft Agenda – as of 12/11/01
Report, discuss, and take appropriate action, if any, on the following:
1. Call to Order
2. Introductions
3. Overview of Hazard Mitigation Planning Process and timetable
4. 2002 Meeting Schedule
5. Draft Resolution – establishing this planning process
6. Hazard Mitigation Plan Outline
7. Framework, Section 3: Natural Hazard Mitigation Topics
8. Adjourn
F–2
Hazard Mitigation Staff Meeting Tuesday, November 13, 2001 City Hall, Room 532, 3:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Review of Initial TSTAC Meeting of Oct 31, 2001
3. Overview of Hazard Mitigation Planning Process and timetable
4. Status on HMGP grant
5. Status on resolution
6. Hazard Mitigation Plan Outline
7. Addition of Hazard-Mitigation to SDAB standard item line in agenda
8. Needs for Tulsa historical data
9. Review of committee members’ comments, questions, and goals/objectives
10. Adjourn
F–3
Hazard Mitigation Staff Meeting Tuesday, December 11, 2001 City Hall, Room 532, 3:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Review of November 13, 2001 TSTAC Meeting
3. Status on HMGP grant
4. Hazard-Mitigation Workshop – tentatively set for April 23, 2002
5. Discussion on changing the time of the HM Citizen Meeting from 10:30a to 3:00p
6. Hazard Mitigation Plan Outline
7 Review of committee members’ recommendations on specific goals and natural disasters
8 Adjourn
F–4
Hazard Mitigation Citizens Meeting Wednesday, December 19, 2001 City Hall, Room 201, 10:30 a.m. Draft Agenda – as of 12/11/01
Report, discuss, and take appropriate action, if any, on the following:
1. Call to Order
2. Introductions
3. Overview of Hazard Mitigation Planning Process and timetable
4. 2002 Meeting Schedule
5. Draft Resolution – establishing this planning process
6. Hazard Mitigation Plan Outline
7. Framework, Section 3: Natural Hazard Mitigation Topics
8. Adjourn
F–5
Hazard Mitigation Staff Meeting Tuesday, January 8, 2002 City Hall, Room 532, 3:00 p.m. Draft Agenda – as of 1/7/02
1. Call to Order
2. Review of Citizens’ Agenda packet for January 16, 2002
3. Overview of Hazard Mitigation Planning Process and timetable
4. Status on HMGP grant
5. Status on resolution
6. Hazard Mitigation Plan Outline
7. Addition of Hazard-Mitigation to SDAB standard item line in agenda
8. Needs for Tulsa historical data
9. RFA on naming Mingo Trail
10. Bibliography/Chronology
11. Review of committee members’ comments, questions, and goals/objectives
12. Adjourn
F–6
Hazard Mitigation Citizens Meeting Wednesday, January 16, 2002 City Hall, Room 1101, 10:30 a.m. Draft Agenda – as of 1/16/02
1. Call to Order
2. Review of Minutes
3. Natural Hazard Mitigation Goals and Objectives
4. Draft Resolution – establishing this planning process
5. Overview of Hazard Mitigation Planning Process, outline and timetable
6. Public Comments
7. Date of next meeting
8. Adjourn
F–7
Hazard Mitigation Staff Meeting Tuesday, February 12, 2002 City Hall, Room 532, 3:00 p.m. Draft Agenda – as of 2/11/02
1. Call to Order
2. Review of Citizens’ Agenda packet for Feb 20, 2002
3. Status on HMGP grant
4. Hazard-Mitigation Workshop – tentatively set for April 23, 2002
5. Discussion on changing the time of the HM Citizen Meeting from 10:30a to 3:00p
5. Hazard Mitigation Plan Outline
6. Review of committee members’ recommendations on specific goals and natural disasters
7. Adjourn
F–8
Hazard Mitigation Citizens Meeting Wednesday, February 20, 2002 City Hall, Room 1101, 10:30 a.m. Draft Agenda – as of 1/29/02
1. Call to Order
2. Review of Minutes
3. Overview of Hazard Mitigation Planning Process, outline and timetable - Group’s recommendations on the specific goals and natural disasters.
4. Hazard-Mitigation Workshop – tentatively set for April 23, 2002
5. Identification of mitigation measures
6. Date of next meeting
7. Adjourn
F–9
Hazard Mitigation Staff Meeting Tuesday, March 12, 2002 City Hall, Room 532, 3:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Review of Citizens’ Agenda Meeting of January 16, 2002
3. Status on HMGP grant
4. Hazard-Mitigation Workshop – tentatively set for April 23, 2002
5. Hazard Mitigation Plan Outline
6. Review of committee members’ recommendations on specific goals and natural disasters
7. Adjourn
F–10
NOTICE AND AGENDA
Hazard Mitigation Citizens' Committee
Wednesday, March 20, 2002
City Hall, Room 1101, 10:30 a.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Approve Minutes of the Meeting of February 20, 2002
3. Overview of Hazard Mitigation Planning Process, Outline and Timetable - Group's Recommendations on Specific Goals and Natural Disasters
4. Hazard Mitigation Workshop - Tentatively Set for April 23, 2002
5. Identification of Mitigation Measures
6. Date of Next Meeting - The next meeting will be held Wednesday, April 17, 2002, 10:30 a.m., City Hall, Room 1101
7. Adjourn
F–11
Hazard Mitigation Staff Meeting Tuesday, April 9, 2002 City Hall, Room 532, 3:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Review of Citizens’ Agenda Meeting of March 20, 2002
3. Status on HMGP grant
4. Hazard-Mitigation Workshop – tentatively set for April 23, 2002
5. Hazard Mitigation Plan Outline
6. Review of committee members’ recommendations on specific goals and natural disasters
7. Adjourn
F–12
Hazards Workshop Agenda Tuesday, April 23, 2002
Start Time Subject Time Agency Speaker 8:30 AM Coffee and Danish 0:30
Mayor Lafortune (NP) 9:00 AM Welcome 0:10 City of Tulsa / Charles Hardt
Albert Ashwood / 9:10 AM Hazard Mitigation Overview 0:15 ODCEM Fred Liebe (NP)
9:25 AM GIS: Overview of Hazards 0:15 INCOG Gaylon Pinc
GIS: Future of Hazard Mitigation 9:40 AM 0:15 TCCHD Amy Thomas Planning
9:55 AM Drought 0:20 ODCEM Albert Ashwood 10:15 AM BREAK 0:15 Severe Thunderstorms, High George Mathews / 10:30 AM 0:45 NWS / Metro Call Winds, Hail, Lightning Tim Diehl
Severe Thunderstorms, High Private Prespective - State 11:15 AM 0:45 Mike Gurley Winds, Hail, Lightning Farm Ins
12:00 PM LUNCH 0:30 Lonnie Ward / 12:30 PM Keynote Speaker 0:30 FEMA Region VI John Westmoreland
1:00 PM BREAK 0:15 1:15 PM Tornadoes 0:20 TAEMA Mike McCool
1:35 PM Extreme Cold, Ice, Winter Storms 0:20 Red Cross Steve Whitehead
1:55 PM Extreme Heat 0:15 Red Cross Bob Roberts
2:10 PM Fire, Wildfires 0:20 TFD Bill Kaiser 2:30 PM BREAK 0:15 Joe Remondini / 2:45 PM Floods 0:20 USACE / OWRB Jeff McMurphy
3:05 PM Dam Failures 0:15 OWRB Cecil Bearden
3:20 PM Expansive Soils 0:15 NRCS Gary Bishop
Tom Bergman (NP) 3:35 PM Hazardous Materials 0:15 TFD / Randy Brasfield
3:50 PM Earthquakes 0:10 OK Geo Suvey Dr. James Lawson 4:00 PM Adjourn
F–13
Hazard Mitigation Staff Meeting Tuesday, May 7, 2002 City Hall, Room 532, 3:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Review of Regional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Workshop, April 23, 2002
3. Status on HMGP grant
4.
5.
6. Review of committee members’ recommendations on specific goals and natural disasters
7. Adjourn
F–14
Tulsa Hazard Mitigation Citizens Advisory Committee Agenda Wednesday, May 15, 2002 10:30 AM Room 1101 City Hall
1. Call to order
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Review Status of HM 1401 Application
4. HM Workshop Report
5. Review Updated Hazard write-ups; Tornadoes, Drought, Extreme Heat, Winter Storms
6. Review Mitigation Measures
a. General Approach
b. Categories of Measures
c. Schedule of Review
7. Old Business
8. New Business
9. Date of Next Meeting
10. Adjourn
F–15
Hazard Mitigation Staff Meeting Tuesday, June 11, 2002 City Hall, Room 532, 3:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Review of Citizens’ Agenda Meeting of May 15, 2002
3. Status on HMGP grant
4.
5.
6. Review of committee members’ recommendations on specific goals and natural disasters
7. Adjourn
F–16
Hazard Mitigation Measures Workshop
Homebuilders Association of Greater Tulsa 11545 E. 43rd Street
Workshop Agenda
Thursday, June 13, 2002 9:00 am – 12:00 pm
Facilitator Time Subject/Topic Presenter
0900 Welcome Sandy Cox, Chair Workshop Goals and Objectives Ron Flanagan Overview, Hazard Mitigation Planning Process Hazards Investigated Profile, History, Vulnerability Mitigation Measures to be Identified Preventive Property Protection Natural Resource Protection Emergency Activities Structural Projects Public Information and Education General Measures Mike Buchert Floods Dam Failures/Releases Levee Failures
1018 Morning Coffee/Networking Break
1028 Tornadoes High Winds Lightning Hail
Winter Storms/Ice/Extreme Cold Extreme Heat Drought Expansive Soils Earthquakes Urban Fires Brent Stout Wildfires Hazardous Materials Events Conclusion/Wrap-up 1200 Adjourn
F–17
Tulsa Hazard Mitigation Citizens Advisory Committee Agenda Wednesday June 19, 2002 10:30 AM Room 1101 City Hall
11. Call to order
12. Approval of Minutes-Meeting of March 29, 2002
13. Review Status of Hazard Mitigation 1401 Application
14. Hazard Mitigation Workshop Report
5. Review Updated Hazard Write-Ups
6. Review Mitigation Measures
7. Old Business
8. New Business
9. Date of Next Meeting-10: 30 a.m., July 17, 2002
10. Adjourn
F–18
Hazard Mitigation Staff Meeting Wednesday, July 10, 2002 City Hall, Room 532, 3:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Review of Citizens’ Agenda Meeting of June 19, 2002
3. Status on HMGP grant
4.
5. Hazard Mitigation Plan Outline
6. Review of committee members’ recommendations on specific goals and natural disasters
7. Adjourn
F–19
Tulsa Hazard Mitigation Citizens Advisory Committee 10:30am, Wednesday, July 17, 2002 Room 1101, City Hall
Agenda
1. Call to order
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Schedule
4. Workshop Mitigation Measures
5. Recommend Capital Improvement Projects
6.Old Business
7. New Business
8. Date of Next Meeting – 10:30 a.m., August 21, 2002
9. Adjourn
F–20
Hazard Mitigation Staff Meeting Thursday, August 1, 2002 City Hall, Room 532, 3:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Review of Citizens’ Agenda Meeting of July 17, 2002
3. Status on HMGP grant
4.
5. Hazard Mitigation Plan Outline
6. Review of committee members’ recommendations on specific goals and natural disasters
7. Adjourn
F–21
SPECIAL MEETING
AGENDA
TULSA HAZARD MITIGATION CITIZENS’ ADVISORY COMMITTEE
7:00 p.m., Tuesday, August 20, 2002
North Commons, Union High School, 6636 S. Mingo Road
1. Call to order
2. Welcome, Introductions – Sandy Cox, Committee Chair
3. Presentation about Hazard Mitigation Report and Plan – Ken Hill, Ron Flanagan
4. Receive public comment on report and action plan’s mitigation measures
5. Adjourn
F–22
SPECIAL MEETING
AGENDA
STORMWATER DRAINAGE ADVISORY BOARD
7:00 p.m., Tuesday, August 20, 2002
North Commons, Union High School, 6636 S. Mingo Road
6. Call to order
7. Welcome, Introductions – Sandy Cox
8. Presentation about Hazard Mitigation Report and Plan – Ken Hill, Ron Flanagan
9. Receive public comment on report and action plan’s mitigation measures
10. Adjourn
F–23
Appendix G: Repetitive Loss Plan Appendix G: Repetitive Loss Inventory by Status by Depth
Rank Address Owner's Name Creek LU Orig List FFFE Reg Fld Fld Dep Comments RL Num
Status: 2001 HMGP Acquisition (1355) in Process 1 6139 E. 54th St. Phillip & Paula Thompson LJ-5 R FP / RL 715.20 718.20 3.00 RL - 2001 1355 HMGP List. / NSM - Joe Creek 66510 MDP recommend acquisition. 2 10209 S. 76th E. Ave. Scott, John P & Sue G R NSA 658.97 661.26 2.29 RL - Previous Owners - Michael F Mullins Trust 16302 Trust Co of Okla 2001 1355 HMGP / NSM - Bridle Trails Estates. 3 3829 E. 72nd St. Thomas M & Iva F Flanaga FR5 R RL 698.30 700.40 2.10 RL - 2001 1355 HMGP (Acquired, closed) / NSM - 38390 High Priority Acquisition 4 10221 S. 76th E. Ave. William S & Melissa K Kelly FD1 R NSA / RL 658.30 659.72 1.42 RL - 2001 1355 HMGP Candidate / NSM - Bridle 36060 Trails Estates. 5 10233 S. 76th E. Ave. Allen, Mark Steven & Pame FD1 R NSA / RL 657.57 658.79 1.22 RL - 2001 1355 HMGP Candidate / NSM - Bridle 52796 Trails Estates 6 9550 E. Latimer St. Bobby C & Virginia M Hans ML15 R RL 612.60 613.45 0.85 RL - 2001 1355 HMGP Candidate / NSM - High 52500 Priority, RL, 2001 HMGP, B/C:2.25, 7 10385 S. 76th E. Ave. Randall & Carol White FD1 R NSA / RL 655.47 655.37 -0.10 RL - 2001 1355 HMGP Candidate; Last Flooded 16346 May 2000. $31,000 cumulative damages. / NSM - Bridle Trails Estates 8 3027 E. 82nd St. Harry & Margaret Bayouth FR11 R 671.80 671.60 -0.20 RL - Repetitive Loss Property. Cumulative 108868 damages approaching 40% of value. Latest damages in May 2000. 9 5512 S. Hudson Pl. Donald G & Ellen M Todd LJ-3 R RL 704.60 703.10 -1.50 RL - 2001 1355 HMGP Candidate (FEMA b/c .03) 16347 Flooding from stormsewer, subbasin 10 2747 E. 49th N. St. Merton & Sally Leigh FL1 R NSA / RL 607.80 606.20 -1.60 RL - 2001 1355 CandidateHMGP 16318 Status: To Be Acquired by City (Non-HMGP) 11 4740 S. Yorktown Ave. Eddie M. Abbott R 0.00 0.00 0.00 RL - Perryman Detention Pond R.O.W., to be 108628 acquired by City Status: Further Investigation Required 12 5345 S. Toledo E. Ave. Mark A & Teryl A Sperle R RL 670.82 672.00 1.18 RL - Little Joe Creek Channel Improvement 32466 13 8119 E. 12th St. MLM4 A 0.00 0.00 RL - Between Jones & Mill / NSM - Mill Creek - 32463 Correction Needed 14 8123 E. 12th St. Jerry L & Pauline Smith 0.00 0.00 RL - Between Jones & Mill. / NSM - Mill Creek - 32464 Correction Needed 15 4706 #13 E. 54th St. c/o Prestige Mgmt 5400 So 0.00 0.00 RL - Correction to 4706 E. 54th St. - Protected by 32476 Little Joe Creek Channel Improvements 16 2531 E. 56th St. Johnny Kye & Cynthia M Ch RL 646.40 0.00 0.00 32502 17 4138 E. 53rd Pl. Jeanne Edwards RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 RL - Little Joe Creek Channel Improvement 16300 18 4706 #19 E. 54th St. c/o Prestige Mgmt 5400 So RL 0.00 0.00 RL - Correction to 4706 E. 54th St. Protected by 32481 Little Joe Creek Channel Improvements / NSM - Owner would not allow access to property, Apts
Monday, October 28, 2002 G-1 Rank Address Owner's Name Creek LU Orig List FFFE Reg Fld Fld Dep Comments RL Num 19 4706 #14 E. 54th St. c/o Prestige Mgmt 5400 So RL 0.00 0.00 RL - Correction to 4706 E. 54th St. - Protected by 32479 Little Joe Creek Channel Improvements 20 4706 #17 E. 54th St. c/o Prestige Mgmt 5400 So RL 0.00 0.00 RL - Correction to 4706 E. 54th St. - Protected by 32478 Little Joe Creek Channel Improvements 21 4706 #9 E. 54th St. c/o Prestige Mgmt 5400 So RL 0.00 0.00 RL - Correction to 4706 E. 54th St. - Protected by 32475 Little Joe Creek Channel Improvements 22 4706 #20 E. 54th St. c/o Prestige Mgmt 5400 So RL 0.00 0.00 RL - Correction to 4706 E. 54th St. Protected by 32482 Little Joe Creek Channel Improvements / NSM - Owner would not allow access to property, Apts 23 5807 E. 56th St. Lawrence J Mundus, Truste R RL 710.70 0.00 0.00 RL - Little Joe 32488 24 4024 E. 53rd St. J Dwight & S Claudine Tayl RL 667.50 0.00 0.00 RL - Little Joe LOMR. / NSM - Little Joe Channel - 16332 Correction Needed 25 2811 S. Cincinnati Ave. Teresa M Hron R RL 638.00 0.00 0.00 RL - Local Drainage 16327 26 5206 S. Harvard Ave., 311 Grace E. McIntosh RL 662.30 0.00 0.00 RL - Investigate, Little Joe Channel Improvements 32467 27 5206 S. Harvard Ave., 315 Bates, Jerry T & Betti J Tru RL 662.30 0.00 0.00 RL - Correct Address 5206 S Harvard #315. This 41198 property is listed as 5260 S. Harvard in the Repetitive Loss Report. 28 1345 S. 99th E. Ave. Charles & Loyce Saylor R RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 RL - Investigate for Correction, Mingo Creek project 66518 29 701 S. Mingo Rd. Wesley Methodist Church R RL 623.70 622.90 -0.80 16338 30 5278 S. Joplin Pl. John C & Stella E Huskinso LJ-4 R RL 709.30 708.20 -1.10 RL - Little Joe, subbasin drainage 66523 31 4706 E. 54th St. c/o Prestige Mgmt 5400 So R RL 681.39 678.57 -2.82 RL - 5400 Apts. See RL#32477. Protected by Little 32480 Joe Creek Channel Improvements. 32 5502 S. Joplin Ave. Roland D & Eleanor C Wilki R RL 707.70 704.40 -3.30 RL - Little Joe 32473 Status: Remain on RL List - Local Drainage 33 4923-25 S. Oswego Ave. Alexander Novovich D2 RL 689.20 0.00 0.00 RL - Duplex - Local Drainage 16335 34 4916-18 S. Pittsburg Ave. Alexander Novovich D2 RL 691.10 0.00 0.00 RL - Duplex - Local Drainage 16334 35 4919-21 S. Oswego Ave. Alexander Novovich D2 RL 690.50 0.00 0.00 RL - Duplex - Local Drainage / NSM - Duplex 16333 36 5309 E. 35th St. Josephine Irene Hinson RL 0.00 0.00 RL - Address listed in FEMA report is 5309 E. 36th 32468 St. Correct Address is 5309 E. 35th St. / NSM - Flood depth survey in progress, 8/27/02 37 6121 S. 72nd E. Ave. William Sparks R RL 776.50 0.00 0.00 40466 Status: Remain on RL List - Deferred 38 3708 S. Sandusky Ave. Johnnie Lee Jr. Eckles JU3 R RL 687.50 695.70 8.20 RL - Split Level / NSM - Floor below ground, 1/2 50956 story. 39 4322 E. 74th Pl. Randall S & Joan E Miller FR6 R RL 742.40 743.50 1.10 RL - Upper Fred 32491 40 4330 E. 74th S. Pl. Holly O'Shea Nunn FR6 R RL 743.20 744.00 0.80 RL - Upper Fred 32497 41 4911 E. 26th Terr. Jeanine C Loftin R RL 752.60 753.00 0.40 RL - EB, Upper Joe Creek, 1355 offer refused 52215 42 4329 E. 74th Pl. Susan C & Mark Hamilton FR6 R RL 745.80 746.20 0.40 RL - Upper Fred 16323 43 4476 Oak Rd. Cook, Harold H Jr & Rosali R 0.00 0.00 0.00 RL - Built Over Creek 108627 44 2860 S. Florence Ave. Roger & Ruth Horn R 0.00 0.00 0.00 RL - Split Level 105235
Monday, October 28, 2002 G-2 Rank Address Owner's Name Creek LU Orig List FFFE Reg Fld Fld Dep Comments RL Num 45 6913 S. Knoxville Pl. Larry Lee & Vicky Lee Lusk RL 0.00 0.00 RL - City local drainage project may solve problem / 16328 NSM - Flood depth survey in progress, 8/27/02 46 3030 E. 51st N. St. Joseph P & Gilda Cacoperd FL4 R NSA / RL 0.00 0.00 RL - Cacoperdo Property / NSM - Offer Rejected 54683 47 3030 Rear E. 51st N. St. Joseph P & Gilda Cacoperd RL 0.00 0.00 RL - Cacoperdo Property / NSM - Offer Rejected 54682 48 3004 E. 51st N. St. Joseph P & Gilda Cacoperd FL4 R NSA / RL 0.00 0.00 RL - Cacoperdo Property / NSM - Offer Rejected 54681 49 3006-08 E. 51st N. St. Joseph P & Gilda Cacoperd FL4 R RL 0.00 0.00 RL - Cacoperdo Property / NSM - Offer Rejected 54680 50 3120 E. 51st N. St. Joseph P & Gilda Cacoperd NSA / RL 0.00 0.00 RL - Cacoperdo Property / NSM - Offer Rejected 54679 51 7102 S. Columbia E. Ave. Edna Ruth Baldwin R RL 698.70 0.00 0.00 RL - Partial Acquisition for 71st St. R.O.W., refused 37216 1355 HMGP offer / NSM - Offer Rejected 52 7225 S. Gary Ave. Donald & Olivia Mauritson T FR12 R RL 689.40 0.00 0.00 RL - Upper Fred Creek, Guier Woods Condo, local 32508 drainage 53 6705 E. 66th St. Betty M & Lynn D Sammon R RL 790.20 0.00 0.00 32472 54 2615 E. 59th St. Cynthia D Harkins RL 643.10 0.00 0.00 RL - Joe Creek MS 32490 55 6523 E. 66th St. Janet M, Ladon K, Chance R RL 790.80 0.00 0.00 32470 56 3444 E. 75th S. St. Hall, Jo Ann & William O Tr R RL 729.20 0.00 0.00 44148 57 522 S. 90th E. Ave. Claudia L & Percy Rose R RL 622.20 0.00 0.00 RL - Local Drainage, 2002 1401 HMGP offer 32487 refused 58 622 S. 132nd E. Ave. Matthew & Renee Steel R 0.00 0.00 0.00 RL - Illegal Enclosure 108486 59 7225 E. 58th St. Mary E Houck LJ R RL 751.70 751.50 -0.20 RL - Repetitive Loss Property. 2001 HMGP List 32493 60 5206 S. Harvard Ave. Jewel M Wallace Trust JSF C RL 662.60 661.50 -1.10 RL - Apartments #301, 303, 305, 307, Little Joe 70013 Channel Improvements / NSM - Apt. building. AKA # 301, etc. 61 7139-41 S. Indianapolis E. Mohawk Properties, LLC. D2 RL 687.00 685.60 -1.40 RL - Fred Creek (Pebble Creek) - Duplex 16344 62 1 W. 81st St. Juanita Satterfield HG3 R 631.50 629.19 -2.31 RL - White House, Hager Creek 108630 63 21 N. 38th W. Ave. Nicholas W & Twyla M Owe R RL 641.40 637.70 -3.70 RL - Cumulative damages exceed 50% of value. 16307 Should be acquired and cleared. West Tulsa, Behind Levee 64 2724 E. 57th St. Virgil F & Pauline F (Truste RL 645.70 615.20 -30.50 RL - Joe Creek MS 16299 Status: Remain on RL List - Commercial/Industrial 65 440 S. Trenton Ave. c/o J.S. Demaree Craig, Le EL4 C RL 700.60 705.10 4.50 RL - Elm Creek / NSM - Defer - Industrial 73927 66 1505 E. 5th St. Southwest United Industries RL 701.00 705.00 4.00 RL - Property was renumbered. Address is listed 38505 as: 435 S St. Louis Ave. / NSM - Office - Flood depth survey in progress, 04/30/01 67 1505 E. 5th St., R Southwest United Industries RL 701.00 705.00 4.00 RL - aka correctly known as 1505 E. 5th St. 54073 Property was renumbered. Listed as 435 R St. Louis. / NSM - Flood depth survey in progress, 04/30/01 68 2706 N. Madison Ave. Henry E. & Luella Ann Lah I NSA / RL 639.50 643.20 3.70 RL - Industrial Property / NSM - Industrial building. 32441 69 3165-71 E. 49th St. BCS Assoc Ltd JU1 MO RL 661.90 665.30 3.40 RL - Listed as 3185 E. 49th St in Upper Joe Basin 35301 Drainage Study - Hermitage Apts. File Folder has Elevation certificates for 3167, 3169, and 3171 also. All part of same property / NSM - Apartments
Monday, October 28, 2002 G-3 Rank Address Owner's Name Creek LU Orig List FFFE Reg Fld Fld Dep Comments RL Num 70 8542 E. 41st St. Alan F Cuddy RL 667.20 670.00 2.80 RL - File location is with 8532-8550 E. 41st St. / 46654 NSM - Commercial 71 8532-50 E. 41st St. Alan F Cuddy C RL 667.20 670.00 2.80 RL - This claim was placed by Owner/Mgr. 16301 Corresponds with RL# 46654 - Commercial 72 2715 N. Madison Ave. Henry E. & Luella Ann Lah I RL 638.60 641.00 2.40 RL - Industrrail Property / NSM - Industrial Building. 32485 73 5840 S. Mingo Rd. c/o Mirza Shahivand Green, MU3 R RL 681.90 683.80 1.90 RL - Day care center. Now 2 story. 1355 offer 32443 refused. 74 6030 E. Pine St. Troy N & Jo Ann Ellison CL3 C RL 668.00 669.30 1.30 RL - Commercial - See also RL#77468 / NSM - 77467 Commercial - See also RL#77468 75 728 S. Wheeling Ave. Chitton, June K Trustee Jun EL7 C RL 713.40 714.50 1.10 RL - Commercial 43284 76 10116 E. 54th St. Heartland Realty Trust I RL 671.20 671.60 0.40 RL - Address in CADB has change to 5401 S 101 E 16331 Ave. / NSM - Industrial. See RL notes. 77 8516 E. 41st St. 669.90 670.00 0.10 RL - See Listing for RL# 32469. Commercail - 73050 Same property, two different insurance policies 78 8516 E. 41st St. Ester B Semones Family Tr MUM4 C RL 669.90 670.00 0.10 RL - See Listing for RL#73050-Commercial-Same 32469 property-two different insurance policies / NSM - Flood depth survey in progress, 3/25/99 79 844 E. 46th N. St. Northside Christian Center CH 0.00 0.00 0.00 RL - Northside Christian Center / NSM - Church 108255 80 6030 E. Pine St., Rear Troy N & Jo Ann Ellison RL 668.00 0.00 0.00 RL - Part of RL#77467 / NSM - Commercial - Part 77468 of RL#77467 - Flood depth survey in progress, 3/25/99 81 1250 S. Memorial Dr., B Oklahoma Bay Homestead RL 0.00 0.00 RL - 1250-B is located in a complex listed in County 16321 DB as 1240 S. Memorial. Owner/Mgr is at 1246 S. Memorial Dr. / NSM - Flood depth survey in progress, 04/30/01 82 815 S. Utica Ave. Tulsa Rec Ctr for Phys. Lmt RL 710.70 0.00 0.00 RL - Handicapped Center 16336 83 6915 E. 38th St. Davis, Reuben, Robert & R C RL 720.30 0.00 0.00 NSM - Commercial 32492 84 7682 E. 46th Pl. Carroll J Jr & T Yvonne Jac C RL 703.40 0.00 0.00 NSM - Flood depth survey in progress, 04/30/01 - 50403 Commercial 85 6219 E. 11th St. Roger W, Walter D. Sr., & MLM2 C/M RL 693.50 0.00 0.00 RL - Permanent Structure value is $131,500. Add 78005 $11,770 for a Mobile Home (MH) for a total value of $318,370. / NSM - Flood depth survey in progress, 04/30/01 - Industrial 86 5002 S. Fulton Ave. Young Men's Christian Ass Rec RL 710.30 0.00 0.00 RL - YMCA Center / NSM - Commercial 72001 87 1531 S. Cincinnati Ave. Ron Holderman & Tommy EL3 C RL 656.50 656.00 -0.50 RL - Elm Creek / NSM - Commercial 66526 Status: Correction Sheets Needed - Elevated 88 4733 #1 S. Harvard Ave. LP Chesterfield C/O Randy RL 663.70 665.90 2.20 RL - Being Elevated, 9/98, Listed as 4753 S. 16355 Harvard in Upper Joe Basin Drainage Study. / NSM - Chesterfield North Building; FFFE by White Surveying; Elevated above BFE; Correction Needed. 89 4733 #3 S. Harvard Ave. LP Chesterfield 0.00 0.00 RL - Being Elevated, 9/98, Listed as 4753 S. 16354 Harvard in Upper Joe Basin Drainnage Study. / NSM - New Construction - Chesterfield 90 3112-3330 S. Memorial Dr Kelly W McNew RL 0.00 0.00 RL - New Buildings. Elevated by owner. / NSM - 66507 Correction, new construction
Monday, October 28, 2002 G-4 Rank Address Owner's Name Creek LU Orig List FFFE Reg Fld Fld Dep Comments RL Num 91 4737-45 #4 S. Harvard Av LP Chesterfield RL 0.00 0.00 RL - Being Elevated, 9/98, Listed as 4753 S. 16353 Harvard in Upper Joe Basin Drainage Study. / NSM - New Construction - Chesterfield Status: Correction Sheets Needed - Vacant Lots 92 3939 E. 60th St. Danny P & Roberta Zalta JSF R RL 693.70 696.50 2.80 RL - Vacant Lot - No Bldg - Correction Needed 32511 93 10101 E. 46th N. St. R 0.00 0.00 RL - Land is vacant. Repetitive Loss Correction 54915 Sheet needed. / NSM - Vacant - RL Correction Needed 94 5810 S. Mingo Rd. Bert & Georgia Sanders MU3 V RL 0.00 0.00 RL - Building Removed by Owner / NSM - 32460 Removed by Owner Status: Correction Sheets Needed - Address Correction 95 7 NITS Location . 0.00 0.00 RL - Correction to 4706 E. 54th St. 32477 Status: Correction Sheets Needed - Acquired by City of Tulsa 96 8213 S. Elwood Ave. City of Tulsa V RL 624.33 628.67 4.34 RL - Hager Creek, Acquired by City (Creel) 73054 97 1225 S. 141st E. Ave. City of Tulsa CO8 V 713.70 716.80 3.10 RL - Property Acquired per letter from Rita Henze 108246 dated 1-8-02. Closed 9-11-01. Demolition completed 12-04-01. 98 6898 E. 56th St. Trustee of C E Gessner Tru LJ V FP / RL 741.60 743.71 2.11 RL - Acquired by city. Closed 5/00. Demolition 32471 9/00. / NSM - Acquired- Rep. Loss. 99 6894 E. 56th St. Warren G & Teresa F Falki LJ V RL 741.80 743.63 1.83 RL - Property Acquired per letter from Rita Henze 42160 dated 1-8-02. Closed 6/19/00. Demolition completed 9/00. / NSM - Acquired- Rep. Loss 100 10524 S. 77th E. Ave. FD1 V NSA 651.70 653.20 1.50 RL - Bridle Trails. Closed 8/10/00. Demolition 90119 9/12/2001. 101 6890 E. 56th St. Beverley R Stanley LJ V RL 742.70 743.06 0.36 RL - Acquired by City. Closed 6/00. Demolition 16313 9/00. / NSM - Acquired- Rep Loss. 102 3008 N. Joplin Ave. City of Tulsa V RL 0.00 0.00 RL - Property Acquired per letter from Rita Henze 36059 dated 1-8-02. Closed 7-29-98. Demolition 11-6-98. / NSM - Acquired - Property aka (3018 N. Joplin Ave. & 3000 N. Sheridan) 103 6929 S. Knoxville Pl. City of Tulsa FR14 V RL 705.40 704.00 -1.40 RL - Acquired by City. Project R.O.W. 32449 Status: Correction Sheets Needed (Outside City Limits) 104 5622 W. 25th St. Jolinda Ann Armstrong R RL 653.80 655.50 1.70 RL - Outside of City. Correction needed. Tulsa 77725 County 105 3604 W. 85th St. 0.00 0.00 0.00 RL - Outside city limits. . Correction needed. 108327 Tulsa County 106 3031 W. 101st St. 0.00 0.00 0.00 RL - Outside city limits. Correction needed. Tulsa 108518 County 107 10031 S. 31st W. Ave. 0.00 0.00 0.00 RL - Outside city limits. Correction needed. Tulsa 108629 County 108 5604 W. 24th St. R 0.00 0.00 0.00 RL - Outside City Limits. Tulsa County / NSM - Out 108322 of City - Correction Needed
Monday, October 28, 2002 G-5 Rank Address Owner's Name Creek LU Orig List FFFE Reg Fld Fld Dep Comments RL Num 109 9145 S. 33rd W. Ave. 0.00 0.00 0.00 RL - Outside city limits. Correction needed. Tulsa 108558 County. 110 8750 E. 169th S. Pl. 0.00 0.00 0.00 RL - Outside city limits. Located in Bixby, OK. 105148 Correction needed. Status: Correction Sheets Approved 111 10201 E. 47th St. Hufnagel, Paul L & Blanch C RL 661.20 662.00 0.80 RL - This property is no longer considered a RL 32489 property. Updated as - Flood protection - on 06/11/1993. / NSM - Removed from A Zone - Correction Needed 112 4421 S. Zenith St. RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 RL - This property is no longer considered a RL 32465 property Up dated as - Flood protection provded - on 07/18/1994 / NSM - Improvements in place/Not listed in CW Plan, 9/98 113 4407 S. Zenith Ave. RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 RL - No Building on Property-1994. Correction 16349 Sheet submitted. Acquired by City. / NSM - Acquired & Removed/Not listed in CW Plan, 9/98 114 4415 S. Zenith Ave. V RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 RL - No Building on Property-1994. Correction 16330 Sheet submitted. Acquired by City / NSM - Acquired & Removed / Not listed in CW Plan, 9/98 115 4422 S. Zenith Ave. RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 RL - No Building on Property-1994. Correction 32510 Sheet submitted. Acquired by City / NSM - Acquired & Removed/Not listed in CW Plan, 9/98 116 2134 N. Canton Ave. V RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 RL - No Building on Property-1994. Correction 45365 Sheet submitted. / NSM - Acquired and Removed 117 8855 E. 91st St. RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 RL - No Building on Property-1994. Correction 16298 Sheet submitted. Acquired by City / NSM - Demolished/ Not in CW Plan 118 2820 S. 88th E. Ave. RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 RL - This property is no longer considered a RL 32496 property. Updated as - Flood protection provided - on 07/18/1994 / NSM - Problem solved/Channel improved/Not listed in CW Plan, 9/98 119 8198 E. 46th St. SMJ Properties Inc C RL 683.00 0.00 0.00 RL - Is an existing actual address. Correction sheet 44366 is in error. / NSM - Flood depth survey in progress, 04/30/01 - Commercial 120 9539 E. 9th St. RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 RL - No Building on Property-1994. Correction 32518 Sheet submitted. / NSM - Acquired & Removed 121 8111 E. 11th St. V RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 RL - No Building on Property-1994. Correction 54834 Sheet submitted. / NSM - Acquired & Removed - Motel 122 9715 E. 13th Pl. RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 RL - This proprty is no longer considered a RL 16337 property. Updated as -- Flood protection provided - on 07/15/1994 / NSM - Removed from A Zone/Not listed in CW Plan, 9/98 123 2625 E. 22nd Pl. V RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 RL - No Building on Property-1995. Correction 32448 Sheet submitted. / NSM - Removed - Vacant
Monday, October 28, 2002 G-6
Appendix H: Floodplain Acquisition Candidates NonStructural Inventory by Status by Depth Hazard Mitigation and Repetitive Loss List
Rank NSM Address Owner's Name Creek LU FP Orig List FFFE Reg Fld Fld Dep Comments RL Num
Status: Recommend 1 1 6745 W. 3rd St. Kathy Sue Roe Reed BH2 R A NSA 648.00 659.30 11.30 2 11 3948 S. Troost Ave. John J Bernadine R FP 652.51 657.49 4.98 High Priority Candidate 3 20 5502 S. 33rd W. Ave. David & Eileen Imwalle MO6 R FP 692.56 696.40 3.84 High priority candidate 4 17 2437 S. Marion Ave. William B. Bell JU14 R FP 773.88 777.70 3.82 Priority acquisition candidate. 5 23 4415 E. 38th St. Visicek,Daniel J JU3 R FP 691.75 695.27 3.52 High Priority Candidate 6 25 4508 E. 39th St. Virginia A. Sample JU10 R FP 695.86 699.34 3.48 High Priority Candidate 7 32 4923 N. Hartford E. Ave. Margaret A Walker FL7 R NSA 640.80 643.80 3.00 High Prioirty Candidate. Fld depth cert by White Survey. 8 151 6139 E. 54th St. Phillip & Paula Thompson LJ-5 R B FP / RL 715.20 718.20 3.00 Joe Creek MDP recommend acquisition. 66510 9 38 2415 E. 18th St. Stephanie Webb CR8 R MDP 716.30 718.98 2.68 Lewiston Detention Site 10 40 2550-52 S. Jamestown Av Stokely JU14 D2 FP 762.48 765.13 2.65 11 47 2409 E. 18th St. Keith and Laura Goggans CR8 R MDP 716.50 718.98 2.48 Lewiston Detention Pond Site 12 33 10209 S. 76th E. Ave. Scott, John P & Sue G R D NSA 658.97 661.26 2.29 Bridle Trails Estates. 16302 13 57 2417-19 E. 17th Pl. Robin Faulk Giannini CR9 D2 FP 720.50 722.70 2.20 Lewiston Detention Pond Site 14 60 2412 E. 17th Pl. Kenneth Buttress & Laurie CR9 R MDP 718.40 720.58 2.18 Lewiston Detention Pond Site 15 406 3829 E. 72nd St. Thomas M & Iva F Flanaga FR5 R C RL 698.30 700.40 2.10 High Priority Acquisition 38390 16 73 9526 E. Latimer St., B ML15 R FP 611.50 613.45 1.95 Acquisition / High Priority/ Associated with NSM # 459 17 289 5840 S. Mingo Rd. c/o Mirza Shahivand Green, MU3 R A RL 681.90 683.80 1.90 32443 18 80 2418 E. 17th Pl. Dick Harris, Jr. CR9 R MDP 718.70 720.58 1.88 Lewiston Detention Pond Site 19 52 2543 S. Cincinnati Ave. Gracie E. Best SW2 R FP 660.70 662.40 1.70 High Priority Candidate. 20 72 10221 S. 76th E. Ave. William S & Melissa K Kelly FD1 R A NSA / RL 658.30 659.72 1.42 Bridle Trails Estates. 36060 21 78 10233 S. 76th E. Ave. Allen, Mark Steven & Pame FD1 R A NSA / RL 657.57 658.79 1.22 Bridle Trails Estates 52796 22 133 5353 S. 33rd W. Ave. Dan & Louise Maher MO5 R FP 688.52 689.70 1.18 Priority acquisition candidate. 23 158 10232 S. 77th E. Ave. Pike, William & Toni-Ann FD1 R NSA 656.80 657.80 1.00 Bridle Trails Estates 24 70 9550 E. Latimer St. Bobby C & Virginia M Hans ML15 R A RL 612.60 613.45 0.85 High Priority, RL, 2001 HMGP, B/C:2.25, 52500 25 459 9526 E. Latimer St. William J Bryant ML15 R 613.00 613.45 0.45 Associated with NSM # 73 26 423 522 S. 90th E. Ave. Claudia L & Percy Rose R X RL 622.20 0.00 0.00 32487 27 455 4920 S. Joplin Ave. Heath Hardcastle R X 719.40 0.00 0.00 28 457 1030 E. 32nd Pl. Greene, Wayne & Lynn Ric R 0.00 0.00 0.00 29 146 10385 S. 76th E. Ave. Randall & Carol White FD1 R D NSA / RL 655.47 655.37 -0.10 Bridle Trails Estates 16346 30 414 7225 E. 58th St. Mary E Houck LJ R C RL 751.70 751.50 -0.20 32493
Monday, October 28, 2002 Page 1 of 14 Rank NSM Address Owner's Name Creek LU FP Orig List FFFE Reg Fld Fld Dep Comments RL Num 31 453 3027 E. 82nd St. Harry & Margaret Bayouth FR11 R C 671.80 671.60 -0.20 108868 32 284 5512 S. Hudson Pl. Donald G & Ellen M Todd LJ-3 R C RL 704.60 703.10 -1.50 16347 33 439 2747 E. 49th N. St. Merton & Sally Leigh FL1 R A NSA / RL 607.80 606.20 -1.60 16318 34 319 21 N. 38th W. Ave. Nicholas W & Twyla M Owe R C RL 641.40 637.70 -3.70 16307 Status: Pending 35 7 5267 S. Union Ave. Willis & Evelyn Johnson MO3 R FP 643.71 649.50 5.79 Pending- Union Bridge project 36 14 8215 S. Elwood Ave. Daniel Toms HG2 R NSA 624.07 628.67 4.60 Closed Pending resolution of probate/Funded. 37 42 222 N. 91st E. Ave. L.M. Knapp ML15 R FP 615.67 618.26 2.59 Listed as 216 N. 91st E. Ave. in L Mingo MDP. Defer. Study. 38 24 5265 S. Union Ave. Willis & Evelyn Johnson MO3 R A FP 646.98 649.50 2.52 Pending- Union Bridge project 39 36 5301 S. Union Ave., B Smith MO3 C FP 647.46 649.50 2.04 High Priority Candidate, Part of Acquisition authorized for Union Bridge project 40 65 5251 S. Union Ave. O.D. & Janice H. Hooker MO3 R FP 648.25 649.60 1.35 Pending- Union Bridge project 41 88 5301 S. Union Ave., C Smith MO3 C FP 648.64 649.50 0.86 Pending- Union Bridge project 42 427 5301 S. Union Ave., A Smith MO3 R FP 650.47 649.50 -0.97 High Priority Candidate, Part of Acquisition authorized for Union Bridge project Status: Deferred 43 16 3708 S. Sandusky Ave. Johnnie Lee Jr. Eckles JU3 R A RL 687.50 695.70 8.20 Floor below ground, 1/2 story. 50956 44 10 2873 E. 39th St. Silvan Levinson JU13 R NSA 700.70 706.30 5.60 Defer for funding. 45 12 3015 E. 26th St. Jimmie D. Giddens JU14 R FP 752.38 757.30 4.92 Defer for funding. 46 260 440 S. Trenton Ave. c/o J.S. Demaree Craig, Le EL4 C C RL 700.60 705.10 4.50 Defer - Industrial 73927 47 15 10335 S. 76th E. Ave. James Brinton A NSA 656.97 661.43 4.46 Defer: Bridle Trails Estates 48 18 3123 E. 37th St. Toi Jean Sanders JU13 R FP 697.09 700.90 3.81 Defer for funding. 49 19 1717 E. 17th St. Bruce Holmbde SW4 C NSA 723.60 727.40 3.80 Defer: Commercial building. 50 22 5527 E. Ute Pl. Hayden D. Crisp CL4 R NSA 628.30 632.00 3.70 Offer Rejected 51 45 2706 N. Madison Ave. Henry E. & Luella Ann Lah I C NSA / RL 639.50 643.20 3.70 Industrial building. 32441 52 27 4770 S. Harvard Ave. Richardson Trustee JU1 C FP 662.83 666.20 3.37 Defer: Commercial; previously known as 4774 S. Harvard Ave. now known as 4770 S. Harvard Ave. 53 28 1225 N. Mingo Rd. Harris Boat ML15 C NSA 610.00 613.30 3.30 Defer: Commercial building, North Mingo. 54 29 2943 E. 26th Pl. Ronald G. Abbott JU14 R FP 747.89 751.00 3.11 Split Level 55 34 3104 E. 48th Pl. John W. Vance, Jr. JU1 R FP 662.56 665.50 2.94 Neighborhood, Defer for Funding 56 35 5202 S. Houston Ave., 4 Not listed MO-3 C FP 631.08 634.00 2.92 Defer: Commercial Building 57 99 5202 S. Houston Ave. Not listed MO1 C FP 631.08 634.00 2.92 Comm bldg listed in SW MDP but not listed in Cnty Assess DB 58 320 8542 E. 41st St. Alan F Cuddy C RL 667.20 670.00 2.80 Commercial 46654 59 41 4015 E. Woodrow Pl. Georgia May CL1 R NSA 677.10 679.70 2.60 Oswego Woodrow Group. Defer 60 43 3144 E. 44th St. Karen Nelson Trust JU12 R FP 676.72 679.30 2.58 Defer for Funding
Monday, October 28, 2002 Page 2 of 14 Rank NSM Address Owner's Name Creek LU FP Orig List FFFE Reg Fld Fld Dep Comments RL Num 61 44 4028 W. 57th St. Maurice E. Reagle MO6 R FP 714.98 717.50 2.52 Vacant, substandard. Outside City Limits. Defer to County. 62 46 2423 E. 32nd St. Harold Staples III FP 742.46 744.96 2.50 Defer for Funding. 63 61 5141 S. 24th W. Ave. MO4 C FP 659.35 661.79 2.44 Defer: Commercial/Industrial Bldg. 64 48 2715 N. Madison Ave. Henry E. & Luella Ann Lah I C RL 638.60 641.00 2.40 Industrial Building. 32485 65 49 1803 E. 17th St. Wayne D. McKenzie Swan C FP 726.30 728.70 2.40 Defer for Funding and further study. 66 50 4814 S. Florence Ave. Mortenson JU1 R FP 663.42 665.75 2.33 Defer for funding. 67 51 1010 N. Mingo Rd. Environmental RS ML15 C FP 611.15 613.45 2.30 Defer: Commercial building. 68 53 1026 N. Mingo Rd. Lane Supply Co. ML15 C FP 611.07 613.37 2.30 Defer: Commercial building. 69 54 1319 N. Mingo Rd. Machine Engineering Co. ML15 C FP 611.05 613.30 2.25 N. Mingo Residual FP. Commercial. Defer. 70 56 10550 S. 77th E. Ave. FD1 R NSA 651.00 653.20 2.20 Defer: Bridle Trails Estates 71 58 3026 N. Joplin Ave. CL1 MH NSA 611.50 613.70 2.20 Deferred 72 62 3185 E. 49th St. FP 662.24 664.38 2.14 Defer: Apt. Bldg valued at $600,000, 3 bldgs. 73 63 2950 E. 48th Pl. Rick Lynn Wilson JU1 R FP 663.38 665.50 2.12 Defer for funding. Neighborhood. 74 66 5202 S. Houston Ave., 3 Not listed MO C FP 630.96 633.00 2.04 Defer: Commercial building. 75 67 2441 E. 40th St. Gregory Alex Farrar FP 728.92 730.92 2.00 Defer for restudy. 76 68 3530 S. Zunis Ct. FP 708.61 710.61 2.00 Perryman: defer. 77 69 3939 S. Troost Ave. Elizabeth K. Lane Trust FP 656.87 658.87 2.00 Defer for restudy with 3948 S. Troost. 78 71 1335 N. Mingo Rd. Mitchell Fence Co. ML15 C FP 611.34 613.30 1.96 Defer. Mingo Residual FP / Commercial 79 74 10198 S. 77th E. Ave. FD1 R NSA 657.18 659.10 1.92 Defer: Bridle Trails Estates 80 76 3004 E. 49th St. Robin E Webb JU1 R FP 663.49 665.40 1.91 Defer for funding. Joe Creek. Restudy. 81 75 1313 N. Mingo Rd. ML15 R FP 611.39 613.30 1.91 N. Mingo Residual FP - Residential 82 77 1628 S. Victor Ave. Nell S. Bradshaw Swan R FP 726.80 728.70 1.90 83 79 2878 E. 34th St. Berry W. Hamilton JU13 R FP 717.42 719.30 1.88 Defer. Joe Creek. Restudy. 84 82 3154 E. 42nd St. James C. Leake Jr. JU12 R FP 679.24 681.10 1.86 Defer: Joe Creek restudy. 85 83 1327 N. Mingo Rd. The Jackson Co. FP 611.47 613.30 1.83 Defer / Commercial. 86 85 1501 E. 19th St. David C. Smith SW3 R FP 707.20 709.00 1.80 Defer / Swan Creek 87 87 4806 S. Florence Ave. JU1 R FP 664.04 665.80 1.76 Defer 88 89 5300 S. Lawton Ave. MO I FP 634.50 636.20 1.70 Defer: Industrial 89 90 7515 E. 106th St. R A NSA 652.55 654.25 1.70 Defer: Bridle Trails Estates 90 91 3326 E. 28th St. Bob Omstead JU14 R FP 749.54 751.20 1.66 Vacant, only garage remains. 91 92 3636 S. Florence Pl. JU13 R FP 699.25 700.90 1.65 Defer for funding. 92 93 3025 E. Skelly Dr. WBUJ C A MDP 662.88 664.50 1.62 Commercial, FP Recommended by MDP 93 94 1120 N. Mingo Rd. Wm A Barnett ML15 C A FP 611.71 613.33 1.62 N. Mingo Residual FP - Commercial 94 97 3751 S. Fulton Ave. JU9 R FP 727.33 728.90 1.57 Defer / Joe creek 95 98 3112 E. 26th Pl. JU14 R FP 746.76 748.30 1.54 Defer for Joe Creek Restudy 96 108 2429 E. 40th St. Mary Katheryn Hazer FP 715.15 716.65 1.50 Defer for funding
Monday, October 28, 2002 Page 3 of 14 Rank NSM Address Owner's Name Creek LU FP Orig List FFFE Reg Fld Fld Dep Comments RL Num 97 109 2420 E. 32nd St. Linda Hamilton Welch FP 743.41 744.91 1.50 Defer for funding 98 111 1425 E. 20th St. SW3 R FP 703.50 705.00 1.50 Defer for funding. 99 118 816 N. Mingo Rd. Mott Roofing and Sheet ML15 C FP 612.07 613.45 1.38 N Mingo defer: Commercial 100 138 1102 N. Mingo Rd. Wm A Barnett ML15 C FP 611.96 613.34 1.38 North Mingo Residual Floodplain / Commercial 101 123 10312 S. 77th E. Ave. FD1 R NSA 656.10 657.40 1.30 Defer: Bridle Trails Estates 102 121 1321 N. Mingo Rd. Barges FP 612.00 613.30 1.30 North Mingo Residual FP / Defer Commercial 103 122 1642 E. 17th Pl. FP 717.20 718.50 1.30 Bridle Tails Estates 104 271 6030 E. Pine St. Troy N & Jo Ann Ellison CL3 C C RL 668.00 669.30 1.30 Commercial - See also RL#77468 77467 105 125 10112 S. 77th E. Ave. FD1 R NSA 662.35 663.60 1.25 Defer: Bridle Trails Estates 106 128 4003 E. Woodrow Pl. K & S Carter CL1 R NSA 677.70 678.90 1.20 Oswego Woodrow Group / Deferred 107 129 2213 N. Oswego Ave. Floyd Smith CL6 R NSA 677.70 678.90 1.20 Oswego Woodrow Group / Deferred 108 130 2207 N. Oswego Ave. David Heath CL6 R NSA 677.70 678.90 1.20 Oswego Woodrow Group / Deferred 109 150 4775 S. Harvard Ave. Allen Properties Co. JU1 C FP 666.79 667.80 1.01 Defer / Commercial 110 162 10142 S. 77th E. Ave. FD1 R NSA 660.16 661.11 0.95 Defer: Bridle Trails Estates 111 166 4012 E. Woodrow Pl. Ellis Williams CL1 R NSA 677.20 678.10 0.90 Oswego Woodrow Group/Deferred 112 167 4011 E. Woodrow Pl. Layman Smith CL1 R NSA 676.20 677.10 0.90 Oswego Woodrow Group/Deferred 113 169 4007 E. Woodrow Pl. Jeffrey Fitts CL1 R NSA 677.20 678.10 0.90 Oswego Woodrow Group/Deferred 114 190 2149 N. Oswego Ave. Charles E Spears CL6 R NSA 678.20 678.90 0.70 Oswego Woodrow Group / Deferred. 115 55 3135 E. 44th St. Robt P & Sandra Reid JU12 R FP 679.67 680.10 0.43 Defer for funding. Neighborhood. 116 338 10116 E. 54th St. Heartland Realty Trust I A RL 671.20 671.60 0.40 Industrial. See RL notes. 16331 117 224 4014 E. Woodrow Pl. Paul Lamanskly CL1 R NSA 0.00 0.00 Oswego Woodrow Group/Deferred 118 237 2143 N. Oswego Ave. CL6 R NSA 0.00 0.00 0.00 Oswego Woodrow Group / Deferred. 119 267 6030 E. Pine St., Rear Troy N & Jo Ann Ellison C RL 668.00 0.00 0.00 Commercial - Part of RL#77467 - Flood depth 77468 survey in progress, 3/25/99 120 318 6915 E. 38th St. Davis, Reuben, Robert & R C C RL 720.30 0.00 0.00 Commercial 32492 121 323 7682 E. 46th Pl. Carroll J Jr & T Yvonne Jac C C RL 703.40 0.00 0.00 Flood depth survey in progress, 04/30/01 - 50403 Commercial 122 340 8198 E. 46th St. SMJ Properties Inc C C RL 683.00 0.00 0.00 Flood depth survey in progress, 04/30/01 - 44366 Commercial 123 369 10305 S. 76th E. Ave. FD1 R A NSA 659.60 659.60 0.00 Defer: Bridle Trails Estates 124 395 5002 S. Fulton Ave. Young Men's Christian Ass Rec X RL 710.30 0.00 0.00 Commercial 72001 125 454 4740 S. Yorktown Ave. Eddie M. Abbott R B 0.00 0.00 0.00 108628 126 458 622 S. 132nd E. Ave. Matthew & Renee Steel R A 0.00 0.00 0.00 108486 127 256 10115 S. 76th E. Ave. Patricia Marquardt FD1 R NSA 662.64 662.60 -0.04 Defer: Bridle Trails Estates 128 257 10220 S. 77th E. Ave. FD1 R NSA 659.77 659.68 -0.09 Defer: Bridle Trails Estates 129 378 1531 S. Cincinnati Ave. Ron Holderman & Tommy EL3 C C RL 656.50 656.00 -0.50 Commercial 66526 Status: Declined
Monday, October 28, 2002 Page 4 of 14 Rank NSM Address Owner's Name Creek LU FP Orig List FFFE Reg Fld Fld Dep Comments RL Num 130 4 14101 E. 52nd N. St., J Wynema Mendoza BC A NSA 576.40 583.60 7.20 Offer Rejected 131 5 14101 E. 52nd N. St., K Wynema Mendoza BC A NSA 576.60 583.60 7.00 Offer Rejected 132 6 14101 E. 52nd N. St., B Wynema Mendoza BC A NSA 576.80 583.60 6.80 Offer Rejected 133 8 14101 E. 52nd N. St., I Wynema Mendoza BC A NSA 577.50 583.60 6.10 Offer Rejected 134 9 14101 E. 52nd N. St., H Wynema Mendoza BC A NSA 577.70 583.60 5.90 Offer Rejected 135 13 1639 S. Lewis Pl. Hilda Hudson Trust CR8 R NSA 718.00 722.70 4.70 Appraisal 9/28/98. Made Offer. 136 37 14101 E. 52nd N. St., G Wynema Mendoza BC A NSA 580.80 583.60 2.80 Offer Rejected 137 64 3012 N. Joplin Ave. R & B McGehee CL1 R NSA 610.20 612.30 2.10 Offer declined on 9/29/98 138 84 3011 N. Irvington Ave. Marvin McGehee CL1 R NSA 610.50 612.30 1.80 Offer rejected 139 86 5417 E. Apache St. A & R Balocca CL1 R NSA 620.70 622.50 1.80 Offer rejected 140 131 3002 N. Joplin Ave. M & L McGehee CL1 R NSA 611.20 612.40 1.20 Offer rejected AKA 3001 N. Joplin 141 157 1714 N. Kingston Pl. Kenneth Ingraham CL3 R NSA 660.50 661.50 1.00 Offer rejected 142 189 3005 N. Irvington Ave. CL1 R NSA 611.70 612.40 0.70 Offer Rejected 143 311 3030 E. 51st N. St. Joseph P & Gilda Cacoperd FL4 R A NSA / RL 0.00 0.00 Offer Rejected 54683 144 327 3030 Rear E. 51st N. St. Joseph P & Gilda Cacoperd A RL 0.00 0.00 Offer Rejected 54682 145 328 3004 E. 51st N. St. Joseph P & Gilda Cacoperd FL4 R A NSA / RL 0.00 0.00 Offer Rejected 54681 146 329 3006-08 E. 51st N. St. Joseph P & Gilda Cacoperd FL4 R A RL 0.00 0.00 Offer Rejected 54680 147 330 3120 E. 51st N. St. Joseph P & Gilda Cacoperd A NSA / RL 0.00 0.00 Offer Rejected 54679 148 361 3112 E. 51st N. St. Joseph Cacoperdo FL4 R NSA 0.00 0.00 Offer Rejected 149 363 3110 E. 51st N. St. Joseph Cacoperdo FL4 R NSA 0.00 0.00 Offer Rejected 150 364 3010 E. 51st N. St. Joseph Cacoperdo FL4 R NSA 0.00 0.00 Offer Rejected Status: Correction 151 402 3939 E. 60th St. Danny P & Roberta Zalta JSF R C RL 693.70 696.50 2.80 32511 152 443 4733 #1 S. Harvard Ave. LP Chesterfield C/O Randy C RL 663.70 665.90 2.20 Chesterfield North Building; FFFE by White 16355 Surveying; Elevated above BFE; Correction Needed. 153 81 8501 S. Elwood Ave. Davis HG2 V NSA 626.75 628.62 1.87 Offer Rejected - Vacant Lot? 154 315 5622 W. 25th St. Jolinda Ann Armstrong R C RL 653.80 655.50 1.70 77725 155 266 436 S. St. Louis Ave. RL 0.00 704.90 0.00 73051 156 283 736 S. Wheeling Ave. RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 73052 157 285 5520 S. Toledo Pl. Gerald & Arlene Ramey R RL 680.60 0.00 0.00 71944 158 286 3112-3330 S. Memorial Dr Kelly W McNew C RL 0.00 0.00 Correction, new construction 66507 159 288 5810 S. Mingo Rd. Bert & Georgia Sanders MU3 V C RL 0.00 0.00 Removed by Owner 32460 160 352 9715 E. 13th Pl. A RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 Removed from A Zone/Not listed in CW Plan, 9/98 16337 Status: Acquired 161 2 6539 W. 3rd St. CK & Jude Kapple BH2 V A NSA 648.30 659.30 11.00 Acquired
Monday, October 28, 2002 Page 5 of 14 Rank NSM Address Owner's Name Creek LU FP Orig List FFFE Reg Fld Fld Dep Comments RL Num 162 3 6747 W. 3rd St. Ben & Ida Graham BH2 R A NSA 650.00 659.30 9.30 Pending - Title Opinion and closing 163 398 8213 S. Elwood Ave. City of Tulsa V A RL 624.33 628.67 4.34 73054 164 21 5525 E. Ute Pl. S. Massey & C. Patrick CL4 R NSA 628.30 632.00 3.70 Closed 165 30 3022 S. Joplin Ave. M Agee & D Tatum CL1 V NSA 608.70 611.80 3.10 166 452 1225 S. 141st E. Ave. City of Tulsa CO8 V 713.70 716.80 3.10 108246 167 59 3024 N. Joplin Ave. CL1 MH NSA 611.50 613.70 2.20 Acquired 8-20-99 168 26 6898 E. 56th St. Trustee of C E Gessner Tru LJ V C FP / RL 741.60 743.71 2.11 Acquired- Rep. Loss. 32471 169 31 6894 E. 56th St. Warren G & Teresa F Falki LJ V C RL 741.80 743.63 1.83 Acquired- Rep. Loss 42160 170 101 8901 S. 33rd W. Ave. B & A Syndergard NI5 V NSA 635.08 636.61 1.53 Acquired: 11/24/98 / Primary structure. ( Duplicate 102 - removed) 171 105 10524 S. 77th E. Ave. FD1 V A NSA 651.70 653.20 1.50 90119 172 39 6890 E. 56th St. Beverley R Stanley LJ V C RL 742.70 743.06 0.36 Acquired- Rep Loss. 16313 173 272 3008 N. Joplin Ave. City of Tulsa V A RL 0.00 0.00 Acquired - Property aka (3018 N. Joplin Ave. & 36059 3000 N. Sheridan) 174 275 4407 S. Zenith Ave. C RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 Acquired & Removed/Not listed in CW Plan, 9/98 16349 175 277 4415 S. Zenith Ave. V C RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 Acquired & Removed / Not listed in CW Plan, 9/98 16330 176 291 4422 S. Zenith Ave. C RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 Acquired & Removed/Not listed in CW Plan, 9/98 32510 177 304 2134 N. Canton Ave. V A RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 Acquired and Removed 45365 178 324 8855 E. 91st St. D RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 Demolished/ Not in CW Plan 16298 179 349 9539 E. 9th St. A RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 Acquired & Removed 32518 180 350 8111 E. 11th St. V A RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 Acquired & Removed - Motel 54834 181 353 2625 E. 22nd Pl. V C RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 Removed - Vacant 32448 182 294 6929 S. Knoxville Pl. City of Tulsa FR14 V C RL 705.40 704.00 -1.40 32449 Status:
183 390 3759 N. Hartford Ave. FL8 R NSA 636.20 700.30 64.10 184 450 3211 E. 32nd N. St. Louis & Gertrude Baker FL3 NSA 662.80 679.20 16.40 185 446 3236 E. 36th N. St. Myrtle Waldon FL3 D C NSA 650.70 655.00 4.30 White Survey 186 411 1505 E. 5th St. Southwest United Industries C RL 701.00 705.00 4.00 Office - Flood depth survey in progress, 04/30/01 38505 187 412 1505 E. 5th St., R Southwest United Industries C RL 701.00 705.00 4.00 Flood depth survey in progress, 04/30/01 54073 188 430 4923 S. College Ave. Kevin D. Newport JU1 R FP 661.90 665.40 3.50 189 325 3165-71 E. 49th St. BCS Assoc Ltd JU1 MO A RL 661.90 665.30 3.40 Apartments 35301 190 434 3030 E. 49th St. Eugene & Marla Brierly JU1 R FP 662.28 665.40 3.12 191 346 6556 W. 1st St. Roy Earl Capp BH2 R NSA 654.90 658.00 3.10 192 435 3038 E. 49th St. Barbara Jo McBride JU1 R FP 662.40 665.40 3.00 193 437 3014 E. 49th St. Michael S. Cook JU1 R FP 662.53 665.40 2.87 194 322 8532-50 E. 41st St. Alan F Cuddy C C RL 667.20 670.00 2.80 16301 195 161 6403 E. 54th St. James McElroy R FP 715.44 718.03 2.59
Monday, October 28, 2002 Page 6 of 14 Rank NSM Address Owner's Name Creek LU FP Orig List FFFE Reg Fld Fld Dep Comments RL Num 196 429 3023 E. 49th St. Jack Seay JU1 R FP 663.00 665.40 2.40 197 343 6901 W. 1st St. Clara F. Mercy BH2 R NSA 656.00 658.00 2.00 Two listings (343 - Storage Building, 344 - Primary Building) Now consolidated into one listing. 198 100 4750 S. Harvard Ave. A A FP 666.19 668.00 1.81 Apartments 199 214 4760 S. Irvington Ave. LJ R FP 714.23 716.04 1.81 200 216 3120 E. 28th St. JU14 R FP 731.54 733.20 1.66 201 95 2104 N. Darlington Pl. B & P Cosner CL1 R NSA 644.00 645.60 1.60 Dawson Park Acquisition Area 202 96 1515 E. 19th St. SW3 R FP 707.50 709.10 1.60 Floodproofing recommended by MDP 203 345 6557 W. 1st St. Francis R. Alltizer BH2 R NSA 656.40 658.00 1.60 204 103 3116 E. 47th St. Roy & Levon Snyder JU1 R FP 664.49 666.00 1.51 Identified by Joe Creek MDP for floodproofing. 205 104 2544 S. Cincinnati Ave. SW2 R FP 660.90 662.40 1.50 206 106 2405 E. 18th St. CR8 R MDP 717.70 719.20 1.50 207 107 2142 S. Florence Pl. CR6 R FP 766.30 767.80 1.50 MDP recommends floodproofing 208 110 3926 S. Utica Ave. FP 660.16 661.66 1.50 MDP recommends floodproofing 209 112 4004 S. Utica Ave. FP 759.83 761.33 1.50 210 113 4626 S. Florence Pl. JU12 R FP 665.34 666.80 1.46 211 114 7520 E. 106th St. FD1 R NSA 652.16 653.60 1.44 212 115 2232 N. Lansing Ave. T & J Parks R NSA 660.00 661.40 1.40 Lacey Park, Urban Development 213 116 2138 S. Delaware Ct. FP 752.80 754.20 1.40 214 117 3021 W. 91st St. NI5 R FP 634.25 635.64 1.39 Nickle Creek 215 119 3136 E. 44th St. James A & Jane Roden JU12 R FP 677.95 679.30 1.35 216 120 4514 E. 39th St. Edna I White JU10 R FP 697.46 698.80 1.34 217 180 4821 S. Florence Pl. JU1 R FP 664.27 665.60 1.33 218 313 204 E. 15th St. Oklahoma Electrical Supply R RL 657.10 658.40 1.30 AKA 214 E. 15th St. (Original Address for RL) - 71998 Correction Needed - Commercial 219 124 1315 N. Mingo Rd. Taylor Boat Storage ML15 R FP 612.01 613.30 1.29 North Mingo residual floodplain, commercial. 220 126 4724 S. Florence Ave. JU1 R FP 664.56 665.80 1.24 221 127 4636 S. Jamestown Ave. JU1 R FP 667.56 668.78 1.22 222 132 4642 S. Jamestown Ave. JU1 R FP 667.44 668.64 1.20 223 447 3234 E. 34th N. St. Annie Barnes FL3 R NSA 653.80 655.00 1.20 Flood depth survey in progress, 3/25/99 224 297 5345 S. Toledo E. Ave. Mark A & Teryl A Sperle R C RL 670.82 672.00 1.18 32466 225 134 1339 N. Mingo Rd. ML15 R FP 612.16 613.30 1.14 North Mingo Residual FP 226 135 3151 E. 38th Pl. William Craig Gille JU13 R FP 692.16 693.30 1.14 227 136 3105 E. Skelly Dr. Pecan Properties Inc JU1 C MDP 664.17 665.30 1.13 228 137 3145 E. 42nd St. David E & Jo Sawyer JU12 R FP 681.39 682.50 1.11 229 139 1632 S. Victor Ave. Bruce & Nancy Holmde SW4 C FP 726.60 727.70 1.10 230 141 1510 E. 19th St. SW3 R FP 706.60 707.70 1.10
Monday, October 28, 2002 Page 7 of 14 Rank NSM Address Owner's Name Creek LU FP Orig List FFFE Reg Fld Fld Dep Comments RL Num 231 140 2132 S. Florence Pl. CR6 R FP 766.70 767.80 1.10 232 142 3155 E. 42nd St. Peggy J Krisa JU12 R FP 681.40 682.50 1.10 233 280 728 S. Wheeling Ave. Chitton, June K Trustee Jun EL7 C C RL 713.40 714.50 1.10 43284 234 410 4322 E. 74th Pl. Randall S & Joan E Miller FR6 R C RL 742.40 743.50 1.10 32491 235 145 3322 E. 28th St. JU14 C FP 750.12 751.20 1.08 236 147 3830 S. Florence Pl. JU13 R FP 691.04 692.10 1.06 237 148 1126 N. Mingo Rd. Underground Const. ML15 C FP 612.32 613.36 1.04 Mingo Residual FP - Commercial 238 149 3109 E. 48th St. Karl E Baer JU1 R FP 664.87 665.90 1.03 239 152 3035 E. 49th St. W Saxon Moore JU1 R 664.39 665.40 1.01 240 153 2272 E. 34th St. William Satterfield FP 719.86 720.86 1.00 241 154 2136 S. Florence Pl. CR6 R FP 766.80 767.80 1.00 242 155 3520 S. Zunis Ct. FP 711.09 712.09 1.00 243 156 3933 S. Troost Ave. Robert J Childers FP 658.01 659.01 1.00 244 159 2132 S. Delaware Ct. CR6 R FP 753.20 754.20 1.00 245 160 2203 N. Lansing Ave. Mae A. Reynolds R NSA 660.50 661.50 1.00 Lacey Park, Urban Development 246 416 3443 E. 57th St. Joe J. & Dorothy L. Koliha JSF R RL 677.50 678.50 1.00 Flood depth survey in progress, 3/25/99 247 163 2824 S. Harvard Ave. C FP 745.15 746.10 0.95 248 164 3303 S. Florence Ave. JU13 R FP 714.16 715.10 0.94 249 165 3840 S. Florence Pl. JU13 R FP 690.06 691.00 0.94 250 168 2550 S. Cincinnati Ave. SW2 R FP 661.50 662.40 0.90 251 170 2246 N. Lansing Ave. Annie Lee Hatcher R NSA 660.50 661.40 0.90 252 171 2238 N. Lansing Ave. G. Dotson, D Bunn, et.al. DB8 R NSA 660.50 661.40 0.90 253 365 510 S. 69th W. Ave. BH2 NSA 658.40 659.30 0.90 254 367 406 S. 69th W. Ave. BB2 A NSA 658.40 659.30 0.90 Flood Depth Survey in Progress, 3/25/99 255 172 5704 S. 39th W. Ave. Clifford L Bierly MO6 R FP 715.96 716.80 0.84 Mooser Creek 256 173 4634 S. Florence Pl. JU12 R FP 665.67 666.50 0.83 257 143 3337 E. 47th Pl. JU1 R FP 667.59 668.42 0.83 258 144 3335 E. 47th Pl. Jack P Revell JU1 R FP 667.59 668.42 0.83 259 174 3810 S. Florence Pl. JU13 R FP 693.78 694.60 0.82 260 175 4708 S. Florence Ave. Jane E. Burns JU1 R FP 665.19 666.00 0.81 261 176 3104 S. Florence Ct. JU13 R FP 722.50 723.30 0.80 262 177 3818 S. Florence Pl. Daniel P Schuman JU13 R FP 692.50 693.30 0.80 263 178 2818 E. 21st Pl. CR6 R FP 755.20 756.00 0.80 264 359 10201 E. 47th St. Hufnagel, Paul L & Blanch C B RL 661.20 662.00 0.80 Removed from A Zone - Correction Needed 32489 265 403 4330 E. 74th S. Pl. Holly O'Shea Nunn FR6 R C RL 743.20 744.00 0.80 32497 266 179 3115 E. 48th St. Charles Lilly JU1 R FP 665.11 665.90 0.79
Monday, October 28, 2002 Page 8 of 14 Rank NSM Address Owner's Name Creek LU FP Orig List FFFE Reg Fld Fld Dep Comments RL Num 267 183 545 N. 91st E. Ave. ML15 R FP 616.10 616.88 0.78 268 181 4820 S. Florence Ave. Kenneth & Hysuk Smith JU1 R 664.82 665.60 0.78 Identified in Joe Creek MDP as structure w flood depth above 1st FF 269 182 4821 S. Florence Ave. JU1 R MDP 664.82 665.60 0.78 Identified in Joe Creek MDP w fld depth above FFF 270 184 8751 S. 33rd W. Ave. NI5 R FP 636.84 637.61 0.77 Nickle Creek 271 185 4711 S. Florence Ave. Jane S. Cowdery JU1 R FP 665.24 666.00 0.76 272 186 4820 S. Florence Pl. Charles Cook JU1 R 664.87 665.60 0.73 273 187 5722 S. 39th W. Ave. Maurice E Reagle MO6 R FP 717.77 718.50 0.73 Mooser Creek 274 188 3132 S. Florence Ct. JU13 R FP 719.49 720.20 0.71 275 191 3127 S. Florence Ct. JU13 R FP 721.20 721.90 0.70 276 192 2144 N. Madison Ave. Patricia Harris V NSA 661.30 662.00 0.70 Lacey Park, Urban Development 277 193 3144 E. 42nd St. Philip L Essley JU12 R FP 680.44 681.10 0.66 278 194 3128 S. Florence Ct. JU13 R FP 720.67 721.30 0.63 279 195 8745 S. 33rd W. Ave. NI5 R FP 637.88 638.50 0.62 Nickle Creek 280 196 3111 S. Florence Ct. JU13 R FP 722.08 722.70 0.62 281 197 3131 S. Florence Ct. JU13 R FP 719.59 720.20 0.61 282 198 4618 S. Florence Pl. JU12 R FP 666.49 667.10 0.61 283 203 1624 S. Victor Ave. SW4 R FP 728.10 728.70 0.60 284 205 1710 E. 17th St. SW4 C FP 725.80 726.40 0.60 285 199 2146 S. Florence Pl. CR6 R FP 767.20 767.80 0.60 286 200 2149 S. Florence Ave. CR6 R FP 764.90 765.50 0.60 287 201 1421 E. 20th St. SW3 R FP 704.40 705.00 0.60 288 204 2141 S. Florence Ave. CR6 R FP 764.90 765.50 0.60 289 445 3008 E. 36th N. St. Lolita Cooper FL3 C X NSA 650.50 651.10 0.60 290 206 3119 S. Florence Ct. JU13 R FP 721.62 722.20 0.58 291 208 3103 S. Florence Ct. JU13 R FP 722.79 723.30 0.51 292 209 2538 S. Norfolk Ave. Michael Neale Ward SW2 R FP 661.90 662.40 0.50 293 342 6908 W. 1st St. Joe & Kara Fleming BH2 R NSA 657.50 658.00 0.50 294 448 3132 E. 34th N. St. Theodore Dikes FL3 R NSA 654.50 655.00 0.50 Flood depth survey in progress, 3/25/99 295 210 4526 S. Gary Ave. JU12 R FP 670.02 670.50 0.48 296 213 3138 E. 37th St. Mark S Bearden JU13 R FP 696.24 696.70 0.46 297 215 3011 E. 49th St. Mark & Deborah Lawrence JU1 R 664.98 665.40 0.42 298 207 3333 E. 47th Pl. JU1 R FP 668.16 668.57 0.41 299 220 2556 S. Cincinnati Ave. SW2 R FP 662.00 662.40 0.40 300 221 2667 S. Boston Pl. SW1 R FP 649.30 649.70 0.40 301 222 2663 S. Boston Pl. SW1 R FP 649.30 649.70 0.40 302 225 2145 S. Florence Ave. CR6 R FP 765.10 765.50 0.40
Monday, October 28, 2002 Page 9 of 14 Rank NSM Address Owner's Name Creek LU FP Orig List FFFE Reg Fld Fld Dep Comments RL Num 303 316 4911 E. 26th Terr. Jeanine C Loftin R C RL 752.60 753.00 0.40 52215 304 424 4329 E. 74th Pl. Susan C & Mark Hamilton FR6 R D RL 745.80 746.20 0.40 16323 305 223 2900 S. Harvard Ave. JU14 C FP 743.70 744.10 0.40 306 368 402 S. 69th W. Ave. BB2 R A NSA 658.90 659.30 0.40 Flood Depth Survey in Progress, 3/25/99 307 211 3331 E. 47th Pl. Rita N & Paula Rowe JU1 R FP 668.20 668.57 0.37 308 227 3120 S. Florence Ct. JU13 R FP 721.53 721.90 0.37 309 229 5708 S. 39th W. Ave. MO6 R FP 717.75 718.10 0.35 Mooser Creek 310 230 2822 S. Harvard Ave. C FP 745.75 746.10 0.35 311 233 3922 S. Florence Pl. JU13 R FP 688.75 689.10 0.35 312 235 2819 S. Harvard Ave. JU14 C FP 747.57 747.90 0.33 313 236 4446 S. Gary Ave. JU12 R FP 676.39 676.70 0.31 314 238 1403 E. 21st St. SW3 R FP 697.20 697.50 0.30 315 438 2301 E. 42nd N. Pl. Elizabeth Williams FL1 R NSA 613.20 613.50 0.30 316 226 2649 S. Florence Ave. JU14 R FP 740.37 740.64 0.27 317 239 3130 E. 44th St. James C Netherton JU12 R FP 678.04 678.30 0.26 318 240 3125 E. 27th St. JU14 R FP 741.75 742.00 0.25 319 241 4716 S. Florence Ave. JU1 R FP 665.65 665.90 0.25 320 258 6722 E. 53rd Pl. Mary Clare Kerns R FP 729.29 729.53 0.24 321 242 3850 S. Florence Pl. JU13 R FP 690.17 690.40 0.23 322 243 510 N. 91st E. Ave. ML15 R FP 618.05 618.26 0.21 323 244 2657 S. Boston Pl. SW1 R FP 649.50 649.70 0.20 324 246 2147 S. Florence Pl. CR6 R FP 769.80 770.00 0.20 325 357 433 E. 40th N. Pl. FL2 R NSA 630.20 630.40 0.20 Flood depth survey in progress, 3/25/99 326 245 1625 S. Columbia Ave. CR12 R FP 751.40 751.60 0.20 327 250 1516 E. 19th St. SW3 R FP 707.60 707.70 0.10 328 252 2534 S. Norfolk Ave. SW2 R FP 662.30 662.40 0.10 329 249 2205 S. Florence Ave. CR6 R FP 765.40 765.50 0.10 330 321 8516 E. 41st St. Ester B Semones Family Tr MUM4 C C RL 669.90 670.00 0.10 Flood depth survey in progress, 3/25/99 32469 331 231 3323 E. 47th Pl. Jack P Revell JU1 R FP 668.33 668.42 0.09 332 232 3325 E. 47th Pl. JU1 R FP 668.33 668.42 0.09 333 234 4652 S. Jamestown Ave. JU1 R FP 668.35 668.42 0.07 334 254 3133 E. 38th St. Jay I & Sandra Rozen JU13 R FP 695.94 696.00 0.06 335 212 1422 N. 77th E. Ave. LM R FP 0.00 0.00 0.00 336 217 1419 N. 77th E. Ave. LM R FP 0.00 0.00 0.00 337 218 2221 N. Lansing Ave. Samuel & Erma Pearson R NSA 0.00 0.00 Lacey Park, Urban Development 338 219 2225 N. Lansing Ave., Erma Pearson R NSA 0.00 0.00 Lacey Park, Urban Development
Monday, October 28, 2002 Page 10 of 14 Rank NSM Address Owner's Name Creek LU FP Orig List FFFE Reg Fld Fld Dep Comments RL Num 339 228 5209 S. Vandalia Ave. LJ R FP 0.00 0.00 0.00 340 248 1429 E. 20th St. SW R FP 0.00 0.00 0.00 341 251 2204 N. Madison Ave. R NSA 0.00 0.00 342 259 4421 S. Zenith St. C RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 Improvements in place/Not listed in CW Plan, 9/98 32465 343 261 4923-25 S. Oswego Ave. Alexander Novovich D2 C RL 689.20 0.00 0.00 16335 344 262 4238 N. Lewis Ave. FL1 R NSA 0.00 612.90 0.00 345 263 7200 N. Lewis Ave. Fugate John C RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 Outside City Limits/Not in CW Plan, 9/98 32434 346 265 652 E. Virgin St. V NSA 669.50 0.00 347 268 648 E. Virgin St. V NSA 669.50 0.00 348 270 4210 N. Lewis Ave. FL1 V NSA 612.90 0.00 349 273 4916-18 S. Pittsburg Ave. Alexander Novovich D2 C RL 691.10 0.00 0.00 16334 350 274 2219 N. Lansing Ave., V NSA 661.20 0.00 351 279 6913 S. Knoxville Pl. Larry Lee & Vicky Lee Lusk C RL 0.00 0.00 Flood depth survey in progress, 8/27/02 16328 352 281 638 E. Seminole Pl., V NSA 663.40 0.00 353 282 514 S. Quantico . Ron & Rose Trimble A RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 Outside City Limits/Not in CW Plan 50043 354 287 1250 S. Memorial Dr., B Oklahoma Bay Homestead C RL 0.00 0.00 Flood depth survey in progress, 04/30/01 16321 355 292 231 E. Ute St. R NSA 699.50 0.00 Flood depth survey in progress, 3/25/99 356 293 815 S. Utica Ave. Tulsa Rec Ctr for Phys. Lmt C RL 710.70 0.00 0.00 16336 357 295 1627 N. Main St. Cristopher Gafney Et Al. R NSA 683.40 0.00 0.00 358 296 4919-21 S. Oswego Ave. Alexander Novovich D2 C RL 690.50 0.00 0.00 Duplex 16333 359 298 593 E. Ute St. V NSA 0.00 0.00 Flood depth survey in progress, 3/25/99 360 299 1631 N. Main St. Lucy Glover & Retha Bords R NSA 683.00 0.00 0.00 361 300 2128 N. Norfolk Ave. DB8 R NSA 0.00 0.00 0.00 362 301 2120 N. Norfolk Ave. DB8 V NSA 0.00 0.00 0.00 363 302 1635 N. Main St. Trumark Co. LLC R NSA 682.40 0.00 0.00 364 303 598 E. Tecumseh St. DB9 NSA 0.00 0.00 0.00 365 305 2112 N. Norfolk Ave. Charlie Moore DB8 R NSA 671.30 0.00 0.00 366 306 1639 N. Main St. Marie Jordan R NSA 682.90 0.00 0.00 367 307 1643 N. Main St. Floyd & Rosie Ruff R NSA 682.30 0.00 0.00 368 308 1647 N. Main St. Elmira Washington R NSA 682.20 0.00 0.00 369 312 2531 E. 56th St. Johnny Kye & Cynthia M Ch B RL 646.40 0.00 0.00 32502 370 314 2430 E. 17th Pl. Snider, Victoria and Randy CR9 R MDP 722.00 722.00 0.00 371 317 5309 E. 35th St. Josephine Irene Hinson C RL 0.00 0.00 Flood depth survey in progress, 8/27/02 32468 372 326 2820 S. 88th E. Ave. C RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 Problem solved/Channel improved/Not listed in CW 32496 Plan, 9/98 373 331 1540 N. Cheyenne Ave. Marion Ross R NSA 690.30 0.00 0.00 Flood depth survey in progress, 3/25/99 374 332 4138 E. 53rd Pl. Jeanne Edwards A RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 16300
Monday, October 28, 2002 Page 11 of 14 Rank NSM Address Owner's Name Creek LU FP Orig List FFFE Reg Fld Fld Dep Comments RL Num 375 333 4737-45 #4 S. Harvard Av LP Chesterfield C RL 0.00 0.00 New Construction - Chesterfield 16353 376 334 4706 #19 E. 54th St. c/o Prestige Mgmt 5400 So A RL 0.00 0.00 Owner would not allow access to property, Apts 32481 377 336 4706 #14 E. 54th St. c/o Prestige Mgmt 5400 So A RL 0.00 0.00 32479 378 337 4706 #17 E. 54th St. c/o Prestige Mgmt 5400 So A RL 0.00 0.00 32478 379 339 4706 #9 E. 54th St. c/o Prestige Mgmt 5400 So A RL 0.00 0.00 32475 380 348 6706 W. 3rd St. BH2 NSA 0.00 0.00 0.00 381 354 6219 E. 11th St. Roger W, Walter D. Sr., & MLM2 C/M C RL 693.50 0.00 0.00 Flood depth survey in progress, 04/30/01 - Industrial 78005 382 355 3236 E. 36th N. St., 2 Myrtle Waldon FL3 D C NSA 652.20 0.00 0.00 Secondary Structure, Flood Depth Survey in Progress 383 356 4706 #20 E. 54th St. c/o Prestige Mgmt 5400 So A RL 0.00 0.00 Owner would not allow access to property, Apts 32482 384 358 2369 E. 42nd N. Pl. FL1 NSA 0.00 612.90 0.00 385 362 111 N. 2nd St. 0.00 0.00 0.00 386 366 366 S. 69th W. Ave. BH2 NSA 0.00 0.00 0.00 387 370 5620 W. 25th Pl. C RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 Out of City - Correction Needed 32498 388 371 5631 N. Elgin Ave. Sonny Egede FL7 R A NSA 675.90 0.00 0.00 Flood depth survey in progress, 3/25/99 389 372 1806 N. Boston Ave. Elmer & Gladys Jenkins R NSA 675.70 0.00 0.00 Flood depth survey in progress, 3/25/99 390 373 5807 E. 56th St. Lawrence J Mundus, Truste R C RL 710.70 0.00 0.00 32488 391 374 1550 N. Cheyenne Ave. Carl & Athlene Barnett R NSA 690.90 0.00 0.00 Flood depth survey in progress, 3/25/99 392 375 4024 E. 53rd St. J Dwight & S Claudine Tayl A RL 667.50 0.00 0.00 Little Joe Channel - Correction Needed 16332 393 376 1528 N. Cheyenne Ave. Nadine Outland R NSA 692.60 0.00 0.00 Flood depth survey in progress, 3/25/99 394 377 20-22 N. Cheyenne Ave. Lee James Evans R RL 687.40 0.00 0.00 72020 395 379 2811 S. Cincinnati Ave. Teresa M Hron R B RL 638.00 0.00 0.00 16327 396 380 1923 N. Cincinnati Ave. A. D. & Louise Jackson DB3 R NSA 675.70 0.00 0.00 Removed from Floodplain 397 381 7102 S. Columbia E. Ave. Edna Ruth Baldwin R C RL 698.70 0.00 0.00 Offer Rejected 37216 398 382 1531 N. Denver Ave. Almeta Buggs R NSA 692.10 0.00 0.00 Flood depth survey in progress, 3/25/99 399 383 1527 N. Denver Ave. Lorell Kirk R NSA 691.70 0.00 0.00 Flood depth survey in progress, 3/25/99 400 384 1523 N. Denver Ave. Almeda & Edward Goodwin R NSA 684.90 0.00 0.00 Flood depth survey in progress, 3/25/99 401 385 1818 N. Boston Ave. DB3 NSA 0.00 0.00 0.00 402 386 7225 S. Gary Ave. Donald & Olivia Mauritson T FR12 R A RL 689.40 0.00 0.00 32508 403 387 5206 S. Harvard Ave., 311 Grace E. McIntosh A RL 662.30 0.00 0.00 32467 404 388 5206 S. Harvard Ave., 315 Bates, Jerry T & Betti J Tru A RL 662.30 0.00 0.00 41198 405 391 1623 N. Greenwood Pl. R NSA 0.00 0.00 406 392 1519 N. Denver Ave. Rod Spurlin R NSA 692.10 0.00 0.00 Flood depth survey in progress, 3/25/99 407 393 1637 N. Greenwood Pl. R NSA 0.00 0.00 408 394 4501 W. Edison St. HR3 CH NSA 664.20 0.00 Flood depth survey in progress, 3/25/99 409 396 4103 N. Frankfort Pl. FL2 R NSA 0.00 0.00 410 399 5626 N. Elgin Ave. James & Joycilla Wortham FL7 R A NSA 674.10 0.00 0.00 Flood depth survey in progress, 3/25/99
Monday, October 28, 2002 Page 12 of 14 Rank NSM Address Owner's Name Creek LU FP Orig List FFFE Reg Fld Fld Dep Comments RL Num 411 401 1625 N. Greenwood Pl. R NSA 0.00 0.00 412 404 1532-34 N. Cheyenne Ave Lloyd & Olivia Jackson R NSA 690.70 0.00 0.00 Flood depth survey in progress, 3/25/99 413 405 1522 S. 74th E. Ave. RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 66519 414 407 6121 S. 72nd E. Ave. William Sparks R C RL 776.50 0.00 0.00 40466 415 408 1827 N. Boston Ave. R NSA 0.00 0.00 Flood depth survey in progress, 3/25/99 416 409 6705 E. 66th St. Betty M & Lynn D Sammon R C RL 790.20 0.00 0.00 32472 417 413 2615 E. 59th St. Cynthia D Harkins C RL 643.10 0.00 0.00 32490 418 417 6523 E. 66th St. Janet M, Ladon K, Chance R C RL 790.80 0.00 0.00 32470 419 418 3444 E. 75th S. St. Hall, Jo Ann & William O Tr R C RL 729.20 0.00 0.00 44148 420 419 1839 N. Boston Ave. St Luke's Methodist Church R NSA 676.60 0.00 0.00 Flood depth survey in progress, 3/25/99 421 420 1848 N. Boston Pl. R NSA 679.60 0.00 0.00 Flood depth survey in progress, 3/25/99 422 422 1345 S. 99th E. Ave. Charles & Loyce Saylor R C RL 0.00 0.00 0.00 66518 423 425 1831 N. Boston Ave. Paul Carbin R NSA 681.70 0.00 0.00 Flood depth survey in progress, 3/25/99 424 431 2233 N. Lansing Ave. R NSA 661.20 0.00 425 432 2237 N. Lansing Ave. R NSA 661.20 0.00 426 433 2239 N. Lansing Ave. Willie Paylor R NSA 661.20 0.00 427 456 2818 E. 38th St. R 0.00 0.00 0.00 428 426 3105 E. 47th St. Susan Stegman JU12 R FP 666.66 666.60 -0.06 429 253 3327 E. 47th Pl. Dana E Hallum Trust JU1 R FP 668.61 668.53 -0.08 430 341 503 E. 40th N. Pl. FL2 R NSA 630.40 630.30 -0.10 Flood depth survey in progress, 3/25/99 431 255 3329 E. 47th Pl. Public Service Company JU1 R FP 668.64 668.53 -0.11 432 247 4642 S. Knoxville Ave. JU1 R FP 668.55 668.42 -0.13 433 428 2421 E. 18th St. CR8 R MDP 719.70 719.20 -0.50 434 444 3113 E. 36th N. St. Joey Boyd FL3 R NSA 645.80 645.30 -0.50 White survey 435 451 2748 E. 29th N. St. Earlene Walker FL3 R NSA 679.90 679.40 -0.50 White Survey 436 202 2161 S. Owasso Pl. FP 687.20 686.60 -0.60 437 290 701 S. Mingo Rd. Wesley Methodist Church R A RL 623.70 622.90 -0.80 16338 438 436 3124 E. 47th St. Patrick Walters JU1 R FP 666.90 666.00 -0.90 439 276 708 S. Sheridan Rd. Marilyn Sue Kloehr MLM2 C RL 690.80 689.70 -1.10 Flood depth survey in progress, 04/30/01 73053 440 309 5278 S. Joplin Pl. John C & Stella E Huskinso LJ-4 R C RL 709.30 708.20 -1.10 66523 441 389 5206 S. Harvard Ave. Jewel M Wallace Trust JSF C X RL 662.60 661.50 -1.10 Apt. building. AKA # 301, etc. 70013 442 269 7139-41 S. Indianapolis E. Mohawk Properties, LLC. D2 D RL 687.00 685.60 -1.40 16344 443 351 17609 E. 13th St. CT4 R NSA 660.00 658.50 -1.50 Flood depth survey in progress, 3/25/99 444 397 4118 N. Frankfort Ave. FL2 R NSA 632.30 630.70 -1.60 445 441 2216 E. 42nd N. Pl. Linda Bear FL1 R NSA 615.20 613.50 -1.70 446 440 2436 E. 17th Pl., CR R MDP 724.00 722.00 -2.00
Monday, October 28, 2002 Page 13 of 14 Rank NSM Address Owner's Name Creek LU FP Orig List FFFE Reg Fld Fld Dep Comments RL Num 447 278 436 E. Virgin St. Sylvester & Phyllis Wrather R NSA 666.20 663.70 -2.50 448 442 4344 N. Lewis Ave. Gene & Lynda Young FL1 R NSA 615.40 612.90 -2.50 White Survey 449 347 6748 W. 3rd St. Frank Murry BH2 R NSA 660.70 658.00 -2.70 450 335 4706 E. 54th St. c/o Prestige Mgmt 5400 So R A RL 681.39 678.57 -2.82 32480 451 264 5502 S. Joplin Ave. Roland D & Eleanor C Wilki R C RL 707.70 704.40 -3.30 32473 452 400 7237 W. Cameron St. Marion & Mary Sturdy BH2 MH NSA 670.70 666.80 -3.90 453 449 3237 E. 34th N. St., 2 Myrtle Waldon FL3 X NSA 656.50 651.10 -5.40 454 421 6726 W. Admiral Blvd. Kellen & Fleta Buckles BH2 R NSA 680.30 658.00 -22.30 455 415 2724 E. 57th St. Virgil F & Pauline F (Truste C RL 645.70 615.20 -30.50 16299
Monday, October 28, 2002 Page 14 of 14
Appendix J: City of Tulsa Overtopped Bridges APPENDIX J
OVERTOPPED BRIDGES
The City of Tulsa’s Master Drainage Plans and the Flood and Stormwater Management Plan 1999-2014, September 10, 1998, identified all public street and roadway bridges which will be overtopped during the 100-year flood event.
Appendix J: Overtopped Bridges, provides a comprehensive listing of all overtopped bridges and culverts in the City of Tulsa. The list includes:
· Location of bridge/culvert · Name of the Creek · Flood Management Area (FMA), the stream segment planning designation in which the bridge/culvert is located · Description of the existing bridge/culvert · Depth of flooding over the low point in the roadway profile that includes the bridge deck.
Appendix J: Overtopped Bridges
Location Creek Name FMA Description Depth Apache St., 900' East of Mingo Rd. Lower Mingo ML13 Low water crossing 13.3 77th St. S. and 69th E. Place Haikey HK20a 2 - 7' x 5' RCB 12.3 72nd E. Ave., E. 76th St. S. Haikey HK5 2 - 7' x 5' RCB 12.1 W. Cameron St. & North Quanah Ave. Oak OC3 102" Underground storm sewer 12 Edison St., East of 49th W. Ave. Harlow HR2 2 - 10' x 10' RCB 8.7 36th S. S., East of Florence Ave. Upper Joe JU13 8.1 88th St. S., 100' West of Lewis Ave. Fred FR1 Low water crossing 48" CMP 8 5300 S. Lawton Ave. Mooser MO1 Bridge, 61.4' x 7.8' 7.8 81st St. S., 1/4 mile East of Elwood Hager HG1 Low water crossing 7.5 Avenue East service rd. to M.V. Expwy. Lower Mingo ML7a 5.5' x 7' CGMP 7.4 112th E. Ave. and 11th St. S. Lower Middle Mingo MLM5a Double tee bridge 7.4 72nd St. S. and 7100 block East Haikey HK24 2 - 6' x 6' RCB 7.3 Lewis Ave., 39th St. N. to 44th St. N. Flat Rock FL1 19' depth 7.1 Mingo Rd., 900' South of Apache St. Lower Mingo ML13 2' x 6' RCB 7.1 B.A. Expressway, 14th St. to Cincinnati Elm EL3 Storm sewers, various sizes 7 Avenue 94th St. S. and Maplewood Ave. Fry Ditch No.2 FD4 36" & 28" CGMP 7 T.I. Speedway access road Lower Mingo ML7a 5' x 30' RCB 6.6 Apache St. at North Kenosha Ave. Dirty Butter DB2 Trapezoidal Channel, 28; BW, 8 6.5 49th St. S., West of Gary Ave. Upper Joe JU1b 6.2 36th St. N., 1/2 mile East of Yale Ave. Coal CL1 4 - 10' x 10' RCB Bridge 6 4th Pl., 1/4 mile East of Harvard Ave. Coal CL2 8' Semi-elliptical storm sewer 6 15th St., under B. A. Expressway Crow CR9 Storm sewer 6 Mohawk Blvd., North Owasso Ave. Dirty Butter DB2 Trapezoidal Channel 40' BW, 5 6 13th Street South Cincinnati to Detroit Elm EL3 Storm sewer 6 Lansing Ave. at 30th Street North Dirty Butter DB10 Low water crossing 5.9 11th St. S. and 83rd E. Ave. Lower Middle Mingo MLM2a 3 - 10' x 7' x 28' RCB 5.9 Independence St., 1/2 mile E. of Harvard Coal CL2 10' x 6' RCBC storm sewer 5.8 Ave. 102nd E. Ave. and 7th St. S. Lower Middle Mingo MLM5a 2 - 8' x 7' x 37.7' RCB 5.8 Delaware Ave., 38th Place North Flat Rock FL3 2 - 54" RCP 5.7 Elwood Ave., 1.2 mi. South of 81st St. S. Hager HG2 Bridge 3 - 10' x 5.5' 5.7 Holiday Park, 1/4 mile West of Garnett Cooley CO1 13" x 15" CMP 5.5 Rd. Toledo Ave. & 82nd St. S. Vensel VE6 84" Semi-ellip. 5.5 Carl Smith Sports Complex Center CT2b Low water crossing with CGMP 5.4 Peoria Ave., East of 31st Street North Dirty Butter DB2 Bridge, trapezoidal Channel, 23' 5.4 Mingo Rd., 2,000' South of Apache Street Lower Mingo ML13 3 - 12' x 10' RCB 5.4
J-1 Location Creek Name FMA Description Depth Pittsburg Ave. at 27th St., St., & B. A. Upper Joe JU3 5.3 Expressway 1st St. S. & Rosedale Avenue Oak OC2 Partial 96" & 60" 5.3 Cincinnati Ave. at 31st Street North Dirty Butter DB10 10' x 4' RCB 5.1 37th St. S., East of Jackson Avenue Garden City GC Bridge underpass 5 115th E. Ave.and 16th St. S. Lower Middle Mingo MLM5b 2 - 10' x 6' x 66' RCB 5 14th St. S., East of Garnett Road Lower Middle Mingo MLM5b 2 - 40' x 20' RCP 4.9 M.V. Expwy. & 18th St. S. Lower Middle Mingo MLM9 2 - 8' x 6' x 180' RCB 4.9 Yale Ave., North of 31st St. South Upper Joe JU4 4.8 Gary Pl. and E. 12th Street Coal CL8 54" Storm sewer 4.7 173rd E. Ave.,north of 12th St. S. Center CT1b Double RCP, 42" diameter 4.7 E. Admiral Pl., 1/4 mile East of Harvard Coal CL2 2 - 10' x 7' x 40' RCB storm sew 4.6 Ave. New Haven Ave. South Fork Joe JSFc 2 - 3.5' x 10' RCB 4.6 E. Newton St. & N. Marion (Louisville?) Coal CL7 2 - 5' RCP 4.5 Ave. E. 114th Pl. S South Tulsa ST-8 81" x 59" ACP 4.5 Pine St., 200' East of Memorial Drive Lower Mingo ML14 3' x 7' RCB 4.4 M.V. Expressway, South of Apache Street Lower Mingo ML8a 2 - 5' x 15' & 5' x 19.4' 4.4 Hartford Avenue at 49th Street Flat Rock FL7 3 - 10' x 8 ' RCBC 4.3 53rd St., 800' East of 33rd W. Ave, Mooser MO5 Bridge, 10' x 8.5' 4.3 37th W. Ave., 1/2 mile South of Skelly Mooser MO6 Box culvert 2 - 8' x 5' 4.2 Drive 101st St. S. and 76th East Avenue Fry Ditch No.2 FD1 3 - 9' CGMP 4.1 13th St. S. and 87th E. Ave. Lower Middle Mingo MLM4 16.5' x 7' x 21' Opening 4.1 13th St. S., 120th E. Ave. Lower Middle Mingo MLM7 2 - 30" x 24" CGMP 4.1 30th St. S. & 111th E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM6b 3 - 7' x 10' RCB 4.1 71st St. S., 2,400' East of 33rd W. Ave. Nickel NI9 54" RCP 4.1 21st St., under B. A. Expressway Crow CR13 24" x 48" Storm sewer 4 Harvard Ave. at B. A. Expressway Upper Joe JU14b 4 108th E. Ave. & 54th St. S. Upper Mingo MU5 3 - 8' x 6' RCB 4 29th St. & South 87th E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM2a 3 - 7' x 10' RCB 4 31st St. & South 73rd East Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM2c 2 - 120" Semi-ellip. 4 3,700 W. Easton Pl. Parkview PV8 Rect. Channel, 20' BW, 8.5' de 4 E. 113th Pl. S. South Tulsa ST-7 49" x 33" ACP 4 T.I. Speedway side drainage Lower Mingo ML7a 1.5' x 2' CGMP 3.9 145th E. Ave. & 46th St. S. Upper Mingo MU2 3' x 4' RCB 3.9 Crosstown Expressway, 1/4 mile N. of Coal CL2 8' Semi-circular storm sewer 3.8 Harvard Ave. 129th E. Ave., 400' S. of I-244 Cooley CO3 Bridge triple RCB 13'-17'-13' 6' 3.8 111th St. S. at 70th E. Ave. Fry Ditch No.2 FD1 2 - 10' x 10' RCB 3.8 Hartford Ave. at 40th Pl. N. Flat Rock FL8 96" Semi-elliptical 3.8
J-2 Location Creek Name FMA Description Depth Garnett Rd. overflow structure Lower Mingo ML8a 2' x 3' RCB 3.8 33rd St. S., East of Florence Ave. Upper Joe JU13 3.7 129th E. Ave., 900' South of 21st St. S. Lower Middle Mingo MLM5c 2 - 5' x 3' x 50' RCB 3.7 I44 and 17th St. S. Lower Middle Mingo MLM9 10' x 7' x 304' RCB 3.7 Union Ave., 1/3 mile North of 91st St. S. Nickel NI16 10' x 4' RCB 3.7 Dawson Rd., 1/8 mile West of Yale Ave. Coal CL1 12' x 14' RCB 3.6 Garnett Rd., 1/4 mile N. of Admiral Pl. Cooley CO1 12' x 5.67' RCB 3.6 Gardens of Cortez Apts. across road, Cooley CO1 Triple 24' x 11.2' CM arch bridg 3.6 below Cooley Dam (Stone Creek?) 138th E. Ave. & 11th Street South Cooley CO8 24" RCP & 56" x 48" Semi-ellipt 3.6 93rd E. Ave. Lower Mingo ML14 3 - 9' x 10' 3.6 16th St. S. and Memorial Drive Lower Middle Mingo MLM4 2 - 10' x 6' x 125' RCB 3.6 Peoria Ave. at 56th St. South to 58th St. Perryman Ditch PE8a Storm sewers 3.6 S. New Haven Ave., North of 11th St. Coal CL2 102" Storm sewer 3.5 Harvard Ave. & E. Oklahoma St. Coal CL9 8' x 3' RCBC Storm sewer 3.5 6th St. S., Peoria to Utica Avenue Elm EL7 78" x 168" Storm sewer 3.5 14th St. S. East of Joplin Ave. Lower Middle Mingo MLM2c 8' x 6' RCB 3.5 13th Pl. and 121st E. Avenue Lower Middle Mingo MLM7 4' x 14.3' RCP & 2' x 16' CGMP 3.5 1/2 mile East of Yale Ave., 1/8 mile Coal CL1 30' x 13' - Mohawk Park Bridge 3.4 North of 36th St. N. Packing plant bridge, 200' E. of Yale Ave. Coal CL1 Trapezoidal channel, 23' BW, 1 3.4 & 1/2 mile North of Pine St. E. Archer St., 3/8 mile East of Harvard Coal CL2 19' x 9.5' Semi-circular storm se 3.4 Ave. 76th E. Ave. and 105th St. S. Fry Ditch No.2 FD1 2 - 9' x 7' RCB 3.4 Cincinnati Ave., at 56th Street North Flat Rock FL7 10' x 6' RCBC 3.4 16th St. S. and 71st E. Ave. Lower Middle Mingo MLM3b 2 - 8' x 5' x 42' RCB 3.4 35th W. Ave., 2,500' South of Skelly Drive Mooser MO6 RCP, 2-60" 3.4 Waco St. S., 600' West of Union Ave. Nickel NI13 30" CMP 3.4 122nd E. Ave., 1/4 mile N. of E. Admiral Cooley CO2 Wood plank bridge, 48' x 7/8' w/ 3.3 Pl. 4th St. South, Rockford Avenue to Troost Elm EL4 90" Storm sewer 3.3 Avenue 98th St. S. and 77th East Avenue Fry Ditch No.2 FD5 10' x 3' RCB 3.3 South Hudson Ave Little Joe JL7 2-12.8' x 6.3' x 31' RCB 3.3 13th St. S. East of Joplin Ave. Lower Middle Mingo MLM2c 10' x 11.5' x 48.5' RCB 3.3 12th St. S. and Garnett Road Lower Middle Mingo MLM5b 2 - 8' x 6' x 47' RCB 3.3 27th St. and South 87th E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM2a 3' x 10' 3.3 34th St. & S. 89th Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM3 2 - 5' x 8' RCB 3.3 17th St. S. and 79th East Ave. Lower Middle Mingo MLM4 6' x 48' and 4' x 34' CGMP 3.2 17th St. S. and 101st E. Ave. Lower Middle Mingo MLM9 9' x 9' x 26.2' RCB 3.2 29th St. S. & Mingo Road Upper Middle Mingo MUM6a 3 - 10' x 13' RCB 3.2
J-3 Location Creek Name FMA Description Depth Wheeling Ave., 48th Pl. S. to 50th St. Perryman Ditch PE6g 3.2 141st E. Ave. & 12th St. S. Cooley CO8 Double 36" RCP 3.1 Sheridan Rd. and 97th E. Avenue Fry Ditch No.2 FD3 5 - 66" CGMP 3.1 East 54th Street Little Joe JL10 2-8' x 6' x 36' RCB 3.1 31st St. South, East of Florence Ave. Upper Joe JU14a 3.1 M. V. Expwy. Service road Northwest at Lower Mingo ML5a 2 - 4' x 9.3' RCB 3.1 46th St. North 13th St. S. and Memorial Drive Lower Middle Mingo MLM3b 3 - 12; x 6' x 93' RCB 3.1 N. Union Ave. & North Latimer Place Oak OC4 48" Underground storm sewer 3.1 Access road East of Lake Yahola & Yale Coal CL11 36" RCP 3 Ave. E. Archer St., 1/4 mile W. of Harvard Ave. Coal CL7 108" Semi-elliptical storm sewer 3 Utica Ave. & Terwilliger Blvd. Crow CR3 Box culverts 3 Yorktown Ave., South of 21st St. S. Crow CR4 Storm sewer 3 21st St. S., West of Lewis Ave. Crow CR8 Storm sewer 3 177th E. Ave. at 13th St. S Center CT1b Steel I-beam bridge, 6.5' high, 3 3 41st St. S., East of Florence Ave. Upper Joe JU12b 3 11th St. S., 350' East of Memorial Drive Lower Middle Mingo MLM2a 3 - 10' x 8' x 112' RCB 3 57th St. S., 1,000' West of 33rd W. Ave. Mooser MO25 Corrugated arch pipe 206' x 3.6' 3 27th St. and South 90th E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM2a 10' H x 12' W x 14' W x 12' W 3 29th St. S. & 129th E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM6d 5' x 17' RCB 3 Apache St. bridge, 1/2 mile East of Yale Coal CL1 54' x 13' Bridge 2.9 Ave. E. 36th St. N., 1/8 mile West of Yale Ave. Coal CL11 10' x 6' Bridge 2.9 Iroquois Ave. at 29th Street North Dirty Butter DB10 4 - 48" CMP 2.9 91st St. S. and South Joplin Ave. Fry Ditch No.2 FD4 12.5' x 10' RCB 2.9 Mohawk Blvd., at Delaware Avenue Flat Rock FL3 2 - 8' x 4' RCBC 2.9 28th St. South., East of Florence Ave. Upper Joe JU14a 2.9 S. Memorial Drive and I-44 Upper Middle Mingo MUM2d 5' x 6' RCB 2.9 Quincy Ave. at 56th St. South Perryman Ditch PE8a Storm sewers 2.9 Quincy Ave. at 53rd Place South Perryman Ditch PE8b 2.9 56th St. S. at Utica Ave. Perryman Ditch PE8b Storm sewers 2.9 Pine St. at N. Elwood Ave. Dirty Butter DB3 54" Storm sewer 2.8 91st St. S. and 69th East Avenue Fry Ditch No. 2 FD7 8' x 6.5' RCB 2.8 Memorial Drive & East 31st St. Upper Middle Mingo MUM2a 3 - 8' x 10' RCB 2.8 34th St. & S. Mingo Road Upper Middle Mingo MUM3 2 - 5' x 8' RCB 2.8 56th St. S., East of Utica Ave. Perryman Ditch PE8b 2.8 N. Quebec Ave. & E. Latimer Pl. Coal CL5 20' x 5' Wooden bridge 2.7 N. Knoxville Ave. & 1/8 mile S. of Pine St. Coal CL9 5' RCP 2.7 Mohawk Blvd. at N. St. Louis Avenue Dirty Butter DB5 2 - 10' x 7' RCB 2.7 Erie Ave. at 38th St. South Upper Joe JU9b 2.7
J-4 Location Creek Name FMA Description Depth Minor gravel road, East of Mingo Road Lower Mingo ML10 2' x 2' Metal pipe 2.7 13th St. S. and 83rd East Ave. Lower Middle Mingo MLM3a 18' x 10' x 23' opening 2.7 33rd W. Ave., 2,000' South of Skelly Mooser MO6 Bridge, 10.5' x 9.4' 2.7 Drive. W. Easton Pl. & N. Quanah Ave. Oak OC3 2 - 5' RCP 2.7 2,100 block of West Easton Street Parkview PV10 2 - 5' RCP 2.7 81st St. S. & Pittsburg Ave. Vensel VE11 6' x 8' RCB 2.7 Detroit Avenue at 31st St. North Dirty Butter DB10 4' CMP 2.6 56th St. N., 300 block East Flat Rock FL7 10' x 4.5' RCBC 2.6 81st St., West of Memorial Drive Haikey HK5 2 - 10' x 8' RCB 2.6 Pittsburg Ave. at 39th Street South Upper Joe JU8 2.6 Bridge downstream of Byers Lake, West Lower Mingo ML6a 3 - 8.5' x 7.1' RCB 2.6 of M.V. Expwy. 15th St. S. Lower Middle Mingo MLM2e 8' x 6' RCB 2.6 30th St. S. & Garnett Road Upper Middle Mingo MUM6c 3 - 7' x 10' RCB 2.6 N. New Haven Ave., 1/4 mile S. of Pine Coal CL7 25' x 9' RCB 2.5 St. 21st Street South at Boulder Avenue Elm EL1 215" Storm sewer 2.5 69th Pl. S. East of Harvard Ave. Fred FR14 2 - 54" RCP culvert 2.5 O.R.U. Bridge #2, E. 7900 & S. Delaware Fred FR2 Single span 40' bridge 2.5 49th W. Ave. South of Edison St. Harlow HR5 9' x 7' RCB 2.5 Souht Joplin Ave. Little Joe JL11 2-14' x 6.4' x 31' ARCH 2.5 Union Ave., 1,400' South of Skelly Drive Mooser MO3 Bridge, 38.6' x 9.3' 2.5 91st St. S., 1/2 mile East of 33rd W. Ave. Nickel NI16 18" RCP 2.5 61st St. S., 550' West of Rockford Ave. Perryman Ditch PE10 Storm sewer 2.5 West of S. Sheridan Road South Tulsa ST-17 2-30" RCP 2.5 N. Darlington Pl. & E. Woodrow St. Coal CL1 Trapezoidal channel, 20' BW, 1 2.4 N. Louisville Ave. & E. Newton St. Coal CL9 (2) 4.5' RCP 2.4 I-244, 750' E. of 120th E. Ave. Cooley CO3 Bridge triple RCB 13'-17'-13' 6' 2.4 Pittsburg Ave., South 36th Pl. S. Upper Joe JU8 2.4 Admiral Pl., 2,000' West of Sheridan Road Lower Mingo ML14 2 - 2.5' RCP 2.4 91st E. Ave. Lower Mingo ML15 3' x 3' CGMP 2.4 25th St. S. & Garnett Road Lower Middle Mingo MLM9 6' x 2.8' x 30' RCB 2.4 29th St. S. & 136th E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM6b 2.4 34th St. S. & 121st E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM6d 2 - 5.5' x 9' RCB 2.4 Yukon St. S., 1,200' West of Union Ave. Nickel NI13 30" CMP 2.4 Utica Ave., 550' North of 61st St. S. Perryman Ditch PE10 Storm sewer 2.4 61st St. S. at Peoria Ave. Perryman Ditch PE10 Storm sewer 2.4 33rd St. S. & Lewis Place Perryman Ditch PE2 Storm sewer 2.4 E. Latimer St., 1/4 mile E. of Harvard Ave. Coal CL7 13' x 8.5' Semi-elliptical storm s 2.3 E. Admiral Pl. 750' West of 129th E. Ave. Cooley CO7 Double 10' x 8' RCB 2.3
J-5 Location Creek Name FMA Description Depth Lewis Ave., North of 20th St. Crow CR8 Storm sewer 2.3 Madison Ave. at 29th Place North Dirty Butter DB10 2 - 5' RCP 2.3 E. Apache Street at N. Utica Avenue Dirty Butter DB5 2 - 9' x 10' RCB 2.3 Pine St. at N. Utica Avenue Dirty Butter DB6 72" Storm sewer 2.3 7th St. S., Rockford Ave. to Utica Ave. Elm EL7 Storm sewer various sizes 2.3 28th Pl. S., East of Pittsburg Ave. Upper Joe JU3 2.3 Yorktown Ave., 48th Pl. S. to 50th St. S. Perryman Ditch PE6g 2.3 56th St. South at Rockford Ave. Perryman Ditch PE89b Storm sewers 2.3 North of E. 121st Street S South Tulsa ST-15 3-24" RCP 2.3 145th E. Ave. & 15th St. South Cooley C11 Bridge 28' x 4' 2.2 15th St. S., 150' East of 145th E. Ave. Cooley C11 60" RCP 2.2 E. 4th Pl., 700' East of 129th E. Ave. Cooley CO7 Double 36" RCP 2.2 Osage Dr. at N. Queen Street Dirty Butter DB3 Trapezoidal Channel, 10' BW, 7' 2.2 N. Lewis Avenue at E. Young St. Dirty Butter DB7 78" Storm sewer 2.2 51st St. N. Cincinnati Ave. to Frankfort Flat Rock FL7 N/A 2.2 Pl. 45th St. S., East of Florence Ave. Upper Joe JU12a 2.2 41st St. S. at Pittsburg Ave. Upper Joe JU2 2.2 Oswego Ave. at 42nd Place Upper Joe JU2 2.2 31st St. S., West of Yale Ave. Upper Joe JU4 2.2 38th St. S., East of Pittsburg Ave. Upper Joe JU8 2.2 East service rd. to M.V. Expwy. Lower Mingo ML6a 2 - 4' x 10' RCB 2.2 59th St. S., 200' West of 33rd W. Ave. Mooser MO24 RCP 3 - 30" 2.2 44th St. & S. 76th E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM4d 2 - 60" RCP 2.2 28th Pl. S. & 139th E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM6e 3 - 9' x 7' RCB 2.2 Quincy Ave. & 37th St. & 37th Place Perryman Ditch PE1 Storm sewer 2.2 61st St. S. at Riverside Drive Perryman Ditch PE10 Storm sewer 2.2 41st St. South & 1 1/2 blocks East of Perryman Ditch PE2 Storm sewer 2.2 Rockford Ave. 56th St. S., 150' West of Cincinnati Ave. Perryman Ditch PE8a Storm sewer 2.2 91st St. S. & Jamestown Ave. Vensel VE4 2 - 3' x 16' & 5' x 12' RCB 2.2 Harvard Ave. & 93rd St. S. Vensel VE4 2 - 60" CMP 2.2 Pine St., 1/4 mile West of Yale Ave. Coal CL1 37' x 12 ' RCB 2.1 Admiral Pl., 1/8 mile West of Yale Ave. Coal CL5 8' x 6' RCBC storm sewer 2.1 17th Street at Baltimore Avenue Elm EL3 102" Storm sewer 2.1 Haskell St., West of Peoria Ave. Elm EL6 54" Storm sewer 2.1 71st St. S. East of Jamestown Ave. Fred FR14 12' x 6' culvert 2.1 47th Pl., East of Jamestown Ave. Upper Joe JU1a 2.1 37th Pl. S., East of Sandusky Ave. Upper Joe JU4 2.1 Yale Ave., South of 38th Place South Upper Joe JU9b 2.1 39th St. & S. 93rd E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM4d 3 - 7' x 10' 2.1
J-6 Location Creek Name FMA Description Depth 30th St. S. & 137th E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM6d 2.1 41st St. S. & 119th E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM7c 2.1 Utica Ave., 300' North of 41st St. South Perryman Ditch PE2 Storm sewer 2.1 51st St., West of 177th E. Ave. Adams AD1 Double RCB, 4' x 6' 2 Crosstown Expressway at Delaware Ave. Coal CL7 Pedestrian bridge, trapezoidal c 2 129th E. Ave., 450' NW of I-44 Cooley CO7 Bridge, triple RCB 13'-17'13', 6' 2 Columbia Pl., South of 16th St. Crow CR12 Storm sewer 2 Delaware Ave. at 16th St. Crow CR12 Storm sewer 2 29th St., East of Rockford Ave. Crow CR3 Bridge/culvert 2 Boulder Avenue 21st Street to 18th Street Elm EL1 Storm sewers, various sizes 2 Boulder Avenue 21st Street to 18th Street Elm EL1 Storm sewers, various sizes 2 16th Street at Boston Avenue Elm EL3 96" & 102" Storm sewer 2 Sleepy Hollow Drive & E. 72nd St. S. Fred FR5 9' Arch cluvert 2 Toledo Ave., North of 39th Street S. Upper Joe JU9a 2 3rd St. S., West of 49th W. Ave. Lower Basin LB1 Storm sewer 2 41st W. Ave., South of Cameron Street Lower Basin LB2 Storm sewer 2 4th St. S. at 40th W. Ave. to 33rd W. Ave. Lower Basin LB2 2 34th W. Ave., 35th W. Ave., 36th W. Lower Basin LB2 Storm sewer 2 Ave., 36th W. Pl. North of 4th St. S. 40th W. Ave. 39th W. Ave., 38th W. Ave., Lower Basin LB2 2 & 37th W. Ave., South of 4th St. S. 33rd W. Ave., 1st St. to 5th St. S. Lower Basin LB2 Storm sewer 2 25th W. Ave., North of Charles Page Blvd. Lower Basin LB3 Storm sewer 2 10th St. S., at 57th W. Ave. to 49th W. Lower Basin LB4 2 Ave. Mingo Rd., 2,000' North of Apache St. Lower Mingo ML12 2 - 5' x 10' RCB 2 36th St. N., 1/4 mi West of 129th E. Ave. Lower Mingo ML6a 2 - 2' x 12' RCB 2 Pine St., 1,200' East of 129th E. Ave. Lower Mingo ML8b 5' x 16' RCB 2 12th St. S., 124th E. Ave. Lower Middle Mingo MLM7 8' x 5' x 38.5' RCB 2 U.S. 75 & I-44 on S. W. Frontage Rd. Mooser MO2 Box Culvert 12' x 14' x 10.2' 2 46th Pl. & S. 89th E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM4d 2 - 5' x 9.5' 2 46th St. & S. 91st E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM4d 2 - 5' x 10' 2 43rd St. S. & 129th E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM7d 7' x 10' 2 39th St. S., 1/4 mile West of Lewis Ave. Perryman Ditch PE2 Storm sewer 2 41st St. South & Rockford Ave. Perryman Ditch PE2 Storm sewer 2 100 block North of 41st W. Ave. Parkview PV5 2 - 96" Semi-elliptical concrete 2 193rd E. Ave., 1,500' South of Admiral Rolling Hills RH Concrete bridge 5' x 16' 2 Blvd. E. 119th Street S. South Tulsa ST-8 2-18" CMP 2 Harvard Ave., 1,800' S. of E. Pine St. Coal CL10 120" Semi-elliptical 1.9 11th St., South-west of 177th E. Ave. Center CT1c Double RCP, 4' x 13' 1.9 161st E. Ave., North of 21st St. S. Center CT2b 3' x 6' RCB 1.9
J-7 Location Creek Name FMA Description Depth 4th Pl. S., East of 161st E. Ave. Center CT8 2 - 3' x 6' RCB 1.9 Kenosha Ave. 1800' North of Apache St. Dirty Butter DB10 2 - 48" RCP 1.9 46th St. North, 2,100' East of Cincinnati Flat Rock FL7 8.5 depth 1.9 Ave. E. 67th St. S. West of Elwood Avenue Hager HG5 18" RCP 1.9 33rd St. S., East of Urbana Ave. Upper Joe JU4 1.9 A - 11th St. S., 1,650' West of Mingo Lower Middle Mingo MLM2a RCB 1.9 Road 61st St. S., 2,300' West of 33rd W. Ave. Mooser MO25 8' x 3' RCB 1.9 57th St., 2,300' West of 33rd W. Ave. Mooser MO6 10' x 4' RCB 1.9 42nd Pl. & S. 79th E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM4b 3' x 10' 1.9 33rd St. S. & Garnett Road Upper Middle Mingo MUM6g 3 - 60" CMP 1.9 E. 118th Street S. South Tulsa ST-8 24" RCP 1.9 Pine St., 1,100' West of Sheridan Rd. Coal CL3 96" Semi-elliptical 1.8 Lewis Avenue., North of 26th Pl. Crow CR15 Bridge 1.8 31st St. S., 1/4 mile West of Utica Ave. Crow CR3 Bridge/culvert 1.8 Trenton Ave., 1,500' North of 46th St. N. Flat Rock FL5 78" RCP 1.8 Mingo Rd., South of 91st Street South Haikey HK2 77' Bridge; 3 spans 1.8 Sheridan Rd., South of 71st St. S. Haikey HK20b 7' x 5' Bridge 1.8 Marion Ave. South Fork Joe JSFb 2 - 11' x 10' RCB 1.8 37th St. S., West of New Haven Ave. Upper Joe JU7 1.8 Mingo Rd., South of Latimer Street Lower Mingo ML15 2 - 5' x 6' RCB 1.8 Garnett Rd., near Lewis & Clark J.H.S. Lower Middle Mingo MLM6 12' x 3.8' x 39.5' RCB 1.8 E. 39th St. & S. 82nd E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM3 2 - 5' x 9' RCB 1.8 41st St. & S. 93rd E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM4d 2 - 4' x 8' RCB 1.8 33rd St. S. & 145th E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM6f 4' x 4' RCB 1.8 26th W. Ave., 250' North of 81st St. S. Nickel NI11 42" RCP 1.8 Cemetery Rd. Vensel VE4 2 - 5' x 10' RCB 1.8 Burlington Northern Railroad Coal CL1 Trapezoidal channel, 40' BW, 1 1.7 E. Latimer St. & N. Harvard Ave. Coal CL10 60" Semi-elliptical 1.7 Rose Hill Cemetery Coal CL5 Trapezoidal channel, 7' BW, 9' 1.7 15th St. & S. Gary Ave. Coal CL8 42" RCP 1.7 E. 11th St. S., 1/2 mile West of 145th E. Cooley CO8 Double 12.5' x 4' bridge 1.7 Ave. 11th St., Southwest of 161st St. S. Center CT1c 3' x 6' RCB 1.7 Virgin St., 2,100' West of North Lewis Dirty Butter DB5 2 - 102" Semi-ellip. Storm sewe 1.7 Avenue 91st St. S., West of Mingo Road Haikey HK3 42' x 15' Bridge 1.7 E. 38th St. & S. 86th E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM3 2 - 5' x 10' RCB 1.7 37th St. & S. 93rd E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM4a 7' x 30' 1.7 41st St. South & Madison Ave. Perryman Ditch PE2 Storm sewer 1.7 45th Pl. S. & Trenton Ave. Perryman Ditch PE4c Storm sewer 1.7
J-8 Location Creek Name FMA Description Depth 5th St., 2,300' W. of Harvard Ave. Coal CL7 60" RCP 1.6 Harvard Ave., 2,000' N. of Admiral Pl. Coal CL7 120" Semi-elliptical RCP 1.6 161st E. Ave., North of 11th St. S. Center CT1c 5' x 6' RCB 1.6 21st St. S., East of 161st E. Ave. Center CT2b 4' x 8' RCB 1.6 Pine St., 2,200' West of N. Lewis Avenue Dirty Butter DB5 2 - 8' x 4' RCB Storm sewer 1.6 Mohawk Blvd., 2,000' West of Harvard Flat Rock FL3 6' x 4.3' RCBC 1.6 Avenue 76th St. S. Haikey HK5 2 - 8' x 5' RCB 1.6 T.I. Speedway East/ West access road Lower Mingo ML7a 3' x 3' CGMP 1.6 61st St. S., 1,600' East of U. S. 75 Mooser MO9 10' x 4' RCB 3' x 7.5' RCB 1.6 61st St. S. & 94th E. Ave. Upper Mingo MU3 6.1' x 23. 8' 1.6 61st St. S. & 87th E. Ave. Upper Mingo MU6 4.5' x 8' RCB 1.6 24th Pl. & S. 104th E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM5 60" RCP 1.6 West of S. Sheridan Road South Tulsa ST-17 36" CMP 1.6 81st St. S., West of Yale Ave. Vensel VE6a 6' x 8' RCB 1.6 31st St. at Utica Ave. Crow CR17 Storm sewer 1.5 177th E. Ave., North of 21st St. S. Center CT2a 6' x 8' RCB 1.5 Peoria Ave., M.L.K. Expressway to Elm EL6 48" Storm sewer 1.5 Archer St. Quincy Ave. North of Admiral Blvd. Elm EL6 48" Storm sewer 1.5 8th St. Wheeling Ave. to Xanthus Ave. Elm EL7 Storm sewer various sizes 1.5 75th St. S. at Lewis Ave. Fred FR9 8' x 4' culvert 1.5 101st St. S., East of Mingo Rd. Haikey HK1 50' x 8.3' Bridge 1.5 S. Memorial Drive, North of 91st St. S. Haikey HK16 2 - 8' x 6' Bridges 1.5 Garnett Rd., North of 81st St. Haikey HK27 15' x 6' Bridge 1.5 59th St. S. South Fork Joe JSFc 2 - 10' x 10' RCB 1.5 38th St. S., East of Richmond Ave. Upper Joe JU3 1.5 120th E. Ave., South of 21st St. S. Lower Middle Mingo MLM5c 2 - 8' x 5' x 37' RCB 1.5 42nd St. S. & 145th E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM7e 3' x 11' 1.5 177th E. Ave., 2,000' South of 21st St. S. Reservoir RV5 2.5' x 6' RCB 1.5 91st St. St., 600' West of Harvard Ave. Vensel VE9 4.5' x 8' RCB 1.5 E. Pine St., 1,600 W. of Harvard Ave. Coal CL9 30" RCP 1.4 NA - M.V.R.R., 1,500' South of E. Dirty Butter DB8 78" Storm sewer 1.4 Apache Street 48th Pl. N., 2,600' West of Peoria Avenue Flat Rock FL7 3 - 10' x 8' RCBC 1.4 28th St. N. at 49th West Avenue Harlow HR3c 8' x 6' RCB 1.4 46th St. S. at Sandusky Ave. Upper Joe JU11 1.4 36th St. S., East of Urbana Ave. Upper Joe JU4 1.4 Darlington Ave. at 38th St. S. Upper Joe JU9b 1.4 37th St. S. & 129th E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM6h 20" RCP 1.4 78th St. S., 2,000' North of 81st St. S. Nickel NI11 2 - 26" CMP 1.4
J-9 Location Creek Name FMA Description Depth 91st S., 900' East of 33rd W. Ave. Nickel NI8 6' x 75' RCB 1.4 193rd E. Ave., 500' South of 31st St. S. Pond PDa 30" RCP 1.4 177th E. Ave., 800' North of 31st St. S. Reservoir RV2 3.5' x 9.5' RCB 1.4 41st St. S., 2,500' West of 193rd E. Ave. Spunky SP4 4' x 8' RCB 1.4 West of S. Sheridan Road South Tulsa ST-17 2-28" PCP 1.4 Louisville Ave., 2,200' North of 11th St. S. Vensel VE7 60" CMP 1.4 108th St. S., 800' East of Louisville Ave. Vensel VE7 70" CMP 1.4 15th St. S., 1,700' East of Harvard Ave. Coal CL2 1.3 Access road at Ellis Park Coal CL6 2 - 48" RCP 1.3 Harvard Ave. & 11th St. S. Coal CL8 72" Semi-elliptical 1.3 Cincinnati Ave., 2,300' South of 56th St. Flat Rock FL7 2 - 48" RCP 1.3 N. Evanston Ave., South of 76th St. S. Fred FR3 3 - 14' x 7' Culverts 1.3 Harvard Ave., South of 74th St. S. Fred FR4 2 - 10' x 8' 1.3 Pittsburgh Ave., South of 71st St. S. Fred FR6 2 - 36" CMP 1.3 33rd W. Ave., 600' North of W. Newton Harlow HR3d 48" RCP 1.3 Street Keystone Expwy, 900' East of S. 65th W. Harlow HR6 1.3 Ave. 25th St. South, East of Marion Ave. Upper Joe JU14a 1.3 Yale Ave. at 36th St. S. Upper Joe JU5 1.3 15th St. S. and 83rd E. Ave. Lower Middle Mingo MLM4 14' x 7' x 20' Steel and Timber b 1.3 21st St. S., 150' West of 120th East Ave. Lower Middle Mingo MLM5c 2 - 8' x 5' x 36' RCB 1.3 Olympia St., 650' East of U.S. 75 Mooser MO2 2 - 12' x 10' & 14' x 10' RCB 1.3 46th St. S. & Garnett Rd. Upper Middle Mingo MUM8b 3' x 11' 1.3 26th W. Ave. South of 71st St. South Nickel NI2 3 - 60" RCP 1.3 33rd W. Ave., 1/2 mile South of 71st St. Nickel NI2 Bridge, 18' x 30' 1.3 S. 56th St. S., 150' East of Cincinnati Ave. Perryman Ditch PE8a Storm sewer 1.3 33rd W. Ave., 1,250' North of W. Edison Parkview PV9 6' x 3' RCB 1.3 St. 41st St. S., 1,700' West of 193rd E. Ave. Spunky SP4 3.5' x 8' RCB 1.3 Pine St., 2,500' East of Yale Ave. Coal CL4 5' RCP 1.2 Rose Hill Cemetery Coal CL5 Trapezoidal channel, 10' BW 9' 1.2 Admiral Pl. and S. College Ave. Coal CL7 102" Semi-elliptical, RCP 1.2 Atlanta St., North of 17th Pl. Crow CR11 Storm sewer 1.2 2nd St. S., East of 161st E. Ave. Center CT8 42" RCP 1.2 11th St. S., 2,000' West of 193rd E. Ave. Center CT9 5' x 8 ' RCB 1.2 Rockford Avenue at Admiral Place Elm EL5 48" Storm sewer 1.2 Hartford Ave. 2,500' North of 36th St. Flat Rock FL2 Trapezoid channel, 80' BW, 14. 1.2 Harvard Ave. near Christian Church South Fork Joe JSFb 2 - 7' x 9' RCB 1.2 61st St. S., West of Urbana Ave. South Fork Joe JSFc 2 - 60" CMP 1.2
J-10 Location Creek Name FMA Description Depth 31st St. S., East of Pittsburg Ave. Upper Joe JU3 1.2 Granite Ave. at 38th St. South Upper Joe JU9b 1.2 Mingo Rd., 2,000' North of 36th St. N. Lower Mingo ML10 4' x 14' RCB 1.2 129th E. Ave., 1/8 mi. South of 36th St. N. Lower Mingo ML6b 2 - 3' x 12' RCB 1.2 I44, North of 11th St. S. Lower Middle Mingo MLM6 8' x 5' x 257' RCB 1.2 61st St. S., 1,900' West of Union Ave. Mooser MO12 10' x 8' RCB 1.2 145th E. Ave. & 46th St. S. Upper Mingo MU2 2 - 8' x 3' RCP 1.2 63rd E. Ave. & Mingo Road Upper Mingo MU4 2 - 15" RCP 1.2 South of 61st St. S., West of 93rd E. Ave. Upper Mingo MU4 66" RCP 1.2 33rd St. S. & 145th E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM6d 4' x 2' 1.2 35th St. S. & 129th E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM6g 2 - 50" x 33" CMP 1.2 40th St. South & Garnett Road Upper Middle Mingo MUM7b 5' x 18' RCB 1.2 81st St. S., 2,000' East of 33rd W. Ave. Nickel NI11 10' x 4' RCB 1.2 36th Pl., 1 block East of Rockford Ave. Perryman Ditch PE1 Storm sewer 1.2 Boston & Boston Pl. 550' S. of 49th St. S. Perryman Ditch PE5 Storm sewer 1.2 Cincinnati Ave, 550' S. of 49th St. S. Perryman Ditch PE5 Storm sewer 1.2 15th St. diversion S., 200' West of Peoria Perryman Ditch PE6a Storm sewer 1.2 Ave. 49th Pl. S., 200' West of Peoria Ave. Perryman Ditch PE6a 1.2 Wheeling Ave., 51st St. diversion to 46th Perryman Ditch PE6e 1.2 Pl. S. Quincy Pl., 56th St. South to 58th St. Perryman Ditch PE8b Storm sewers 1.2 South 56th St. S. East of St. Louis Ave. Perryman Ditch PE8b Storm sewers 1.2 53rd St. S., 500' East of Quincy Ave. Perryman Ditch PE8c 1.2 33rd W. Ave. North of Easton St. Parkview PV9 10' x 7' RCB 1.2 Edison St., 300' West of 33rd W. Ave. Parkview PV9 6' x 2' RCB 1.2 41st St. S., 600' West of 193rd E. Ave. Spunky SP1b 2 - 3.5' x 9' RCB 1.2 Rose Hill Cemetery Coal CL5 Rectangular channel, 10.5' BW 1.1 11th St., 2,500' W. of Harvard Ave. Coal CL7 36" RCP 1.1 112th E. Ave., 1,150' N. of E. Admiral Pl. Cooley CO1 1.1 at Wood Creek Apts. 30th Pl. and Trenton Ave. Crow CR16 Storm sewer 1.1 Utica Ave., South of 30th Place Crow CR16 Storm sewer 1.1 21st St., West of 177th E. Ave. Center CT2b Double RCB 6' x 8' 1.1 177th E. Ave. North of 21st St. S. Center CT3 3' x 6' RCB 1.1 Cincinnati Ave., 2,000' North of Pine Dirty Butter DB3 10.9' x 14' Arch 1.1 Street Pine St., 2,500' West of North Peoria Dirty Butter DB9 7.6' x 11' Arch Storm sewer 1.1 Avenue 81st St. S., 1/2 mile West of Elwood Ave. Hager HG8 4' x 3' CMP Arch 1.1 91st St. S., East of Mingo Road Haikey HK10 8' x 3.4' RCB 1.1 91st St. S., East of Mingo Road Haikey HK9 8' x 2.8' RCB 1.1
J-11 Location Creek Name FMA Description Depth South Sheridan Road Little Joe JL9 2-14' x 5' x 590' RCB 1.1 45th St. S., East of Toledo Ave. Upper Joe JU11 1.1 47th St. S., East of Florence Ave. Upper Joe JU12a 1.1 Florence Ave., North of 44th Pl. S. Upper Joe JU12c 1.1 36th St. S., East of Richmond Ave. Upper Joe JU3 1.1 38th St. S., East of New Haven Ave. Upper Joe JU7 1.1 36th St. S. at Oswego Ave. Upper Joe JU8 1.1 129th E. Ave. Lower Middle Mingo MLM7 3' x 2' RCB 1.1 26th W. Ave., 400' South of I-44 Mooser MO5 57' x 16' 1.1 Garnett Rd. & 50th St. S. Upper Mingo MU1 2 - 24" RCP 1.1 51st St. S. & 136th E. Ave. Upper Mingo MU2 2 - 60" CMP 1.1 South of 51st St. S., East of Hwy. 169 Upper Mingo MU3 4 - 10' x 8' RCB 1.1 54th St. S. & 96th E. Ave. Upper Mingo MU6 5' x 7' & 8' x 7.9' RCB 1.1 34th St. S. & 93rd East Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM3 9' x 10' 1.1 31st St. S. & M. V. Expressway Upper Middle Mingo MUM6a 4 - 10' x 15' 1.1 26th St. S. & 145th E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM6e 5 - 56" CMP 1.1 91st S. S., 500' East of 33rd W. Ave. Nickel NI5 Bridge, 96' x 40' 1.1 37th St. S., 300' East of Riverside Drive Perryman Ditch PE1 Storm sewer 1.1 37th S. S., 400' East of Riverside Drive Perryman Ditch PE1 Storm sewer 1.1 51st St. diversion South & Madison Ave. Perryman Ditch PE6a Storm sewer 1.1 51st St. diversion S., 200' East of Perryman Ditch PE6a N/A 1.1 Cincinnati Ave. 21st St. S., 400' West of 193rd E. Ave. Reservoir RV1 2 - 6' x 11.5' RCB 1.1 193rd E. Ave., 2,100' North 31st St. S. Reservoir RV6 24" RCP 1.1 S Yale Avenue South Tulsa ST-8 84" Steel Pipe 1.1 Burlington & SL & SF Railroad Coal CL3 5.5' x 6.5' Semi-elliptical CGMP 1 SL & SF Railroad bridge Coal CL4 8' x 6' RCB 1 Crosstown Expressway 650' W. of Yale Coal CL5 7' x 6' RCBC 1 Ave. 32nd Pl. at Yorktown Ave. Crow CR17 Storm sewer 1 Victor Ave. at 32nd St. Crow CR17 Storm sewer 1 Lewis Ave., South of 21st St. S. Crow CR5 Storm sewer 1 17th Pl., East of Lewis Ave. Crow CR8 Storm sewer 1 16th St., East of Lewis Ave. Crow CR9 Storm sewer 1 11th St. S., West of 177th E. Ave. Center CT 6 3 - 24" diameter RCP 1 36th St. N., 1,900' East of N. Peoria Ave. Dirty Butter DB1 Trapezoidal channel 42' BW, 12 1 11th St., South Quincy Ave. to Frankfort Elm EL8 54" Storm sewer 1 Ave. Apache St., 2,500' East of N. Lewis Flat Rock FL3 48" x 42" RCP 1 Avenue Peoria Ave., 700' South of 46th St. North Flat Rock FL6 48" CGMP 1 Pittsburg Ave., North of 46th PL. S. Upper Joe JU11 1
J-12 Location Creek Name FMA Description Depth Florence Ave., South of 38th Pl. S. Upper Joe JU12d 1 49th W. Ave. at 3rd St. South Lower Basin LB1 1 3rd St. S., East of 57th W. Ave. Lower Basin LB1 1 49th W. Ave. at Admiral Pl. Lower Basin LB1 1 1st St. S., West of 57th W. Ave. & 57th Lower Basin LB1 1 W. Ave to 49th W. Ave. 49th W. Ave. at 1st St. South Lower Basin LB1 1 Admiral Pl., 49th W. Ave. to 50th W. Ave. Lower Basin LB1 1 7th St. S. at 65th W. Ave. Lower Basin LB1 1 41st W. Ave. at 5th St. South Lower Basin LB2 1 5th St. S. at 45th W. Ave. to 43rd W. Ave. Lower Basin LB2 Storm sewer 1 45th W. Ave., 44th W. Ave., 43rd W. Ave. Lower Basin LB2 1 & 42nd W. Ave., 3rd St. S. to 4th St. South 48th W. Ave., 46th W. Ave., 45th W. Lower Basin LB2 1 Ave., 44th W. Ave.. 43rd W. Ave. 42nd W. Ave., 4th St. S. to Charles 43rd W. Ave., South of Cameron St. Lower Basin LB2 1 3rd St. S. at 45th W. Ave. to 42nd W. Lower Basin LB2 Storm sewer 1 Ave. Charles Page Blvd., East 25th W. Ave. Lower Basin LB3 1 Chas. Page Blvd., 33rd W. Ave. to 25th Lower Basin LB3 Storm sewer 1 W. Ave. 65th W. Ave. South of 8th St. S. Lower Basin LB4 1 57th, 54th and 51st W. Ave., South of Lower Basin LB4 1 10th St. S. Apache St., 1/3 mi. East of 129th E. Ave. Lower Mingo ML7b 3 - 6' x 17' RCB 1 129th E. Ave., 2,000' South of Pine St. Lower Mingo ML8c 2 - 4' x 6' CGMP 1 40th St. & S. 90th E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM4b 2 - 6' x 10' RCB 1 B.A. Expressway & South 92nd E. Ave. Upper Middle Mingo MUM4d 2 - 7' x 8.5' 1 33rd W. Ave., North of 71st St. South Nickel NI1 6' x 2.5' RCB 1 73rd St. S., South of 71st St. S. Nickel NI2 3 - 60" RCP 1 Peoria Ave., 500' North of 61st St. S. Perryman Ditch PE10 Storm sewer 1 Lewis Ave., 1,000' North of 36th St. South Perryman Ditch PE2 Storm sewer 1 36th St. S., 500' West of Lewis Ave. Perryman Ditch PE2 Storm sewer 1 56th St. diversion S. & Riverside Drive Perryman Ditch PE6a Storm sewer 1 Utica Ave., 51st St. diversion to 47th Pl. Perryman Ditch PE6b 1 S. Troost Ave., 51st St. diversion to 46th Pl. Perryman Ditch PE6b 1 South Trenton Ave., 49th St. S. to 46th Pl. South Perryman Ditch PE6b 1 49th St. S., Rockford Ave. to Utica Ave. Perryman Ditch PE6b 1 49th Pl. S., Rockford Ave. to Utica Ave. Perryman Ditch PE6b 1 50th St. S., Rockford Ave. to Utica Ave. Perryman Ditch PE6b 1 50th Pl. S., Rockford Ave. to Utica Ave. Perryman Ditch PE6b 1
J-13 Location Creek Name FMA Description Depth 48th St., Victor Ave. to Wheeling Ave. Perryman Ditch PE6e 1 Victor Ave., 48th St. S. to 45th Pl. S. Perryman Ditch PE6e 1 46th Pl. S., Victor Ave. to Wheeling Ave. Perryman Ditch PE6e 1 193rd E. Ave., 150' North of 31st St. S. Reservoir RV7 24" RCP 1 E. 121st Street S. South Tulsa ST-12 2-24" 1 E. 116th Street S. South Tulsa ST-17 24" RCP 1 River Road South Tulsa ST-19 18" RCP 1 River Road South Tulsa ST-21 12" RCP 1 Owasso Ave., South of 25th St. S. Swan-Travis Park SW2 1 Woodward Blvd., South 25th St. S. Swan-Travis Park SW2 1 Peoria Ave., South of 21st St. S. Swan-Travis Park SW3 1 21st St. S., East of Peoria Ave. Swan-Travis Park SW3 1 Lewis Ave. at 16th St. South Swan-Travis Park SW4 1 77th St. S., 3,000' West of Yale Ave. Vensel VE11 42" RCP 1 84th St. S., 2,200' East of Harvard Ave. Vensel VE5 3 - 6' x 10' RCB 1 E. 61st Street Little Joe JL1 66" SEP 0.5 South Sheridan Road South Tulsa ST-17 2-4' x 1.5' RCB 0.4 E. 121st Street South Tulsa ST-17 6' x 1.5' RCB 0.4
J-14
Appendix K: City of Tulsa Hazardous Materials Sites
APPENDIX K
TIER 2 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS FACILITIES
The Tier 2 Hazardous Material list is a comprehensive listing of all hazardous material sites within the City of Tulsa, as reported to the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality.
All facilities which have any hazardous substance (defined as any product requiring an MSDS filing) must submit an annual Tier 2 form. The Federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (SARA Title III). Section 312 requires an annual submission of a Tier Two form detailing the site’s hazardous chemical inventories.
Appendix K presents the name and address of all Tier 2 Hazardous Material sites. The chemicals located at each site have not been included in this list due to size of file. This page removed due to sensitive nature of information.
For more information, contact information can be located on page xviii.
Appendix L: Public Comments Survey
Interoffice Memo
Date: August 29, 2002
To: Hazard Mitigation Citizens Advisory Committee
CC: Kim MacLeod, Public Works Community Affairs and Planning Ken Hill, Public Works Engineering Services From: Laureen Gibson Gilroy, Public Works Community Affairs and Planning
RE: Public Comments on Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Community Affairs and Planning coordinated efforts to solicit public comments on the Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan. Deadline for comments was August 28. We did not receive any public comments.
The following activities were conducted as part of our solicitation of comments:
1. Draft copies of the plan were presented at a public meeting on August 20, 2002. Letters announcing the meeting and opportunity for comment were mailed to approximately 600 neighborhood association members and people who attended the Citywide Drainage Plan Update meetings held during Spring 2001. The August 20 session included presentation of the results of the Spring 2001 meetings with the public. Comment forms were available for completion at the August 20 meeting or for take home and mailing later to City Hall. No completed forms were collected that night. Approximately 33 people attended the meeting, including committee members. 2. Newspaper announcement of the meeting included information on how to comment. 3. The City’s home web page included a news release about public comment and link to the plan and comment form. The “Public Works” button also led to a link to the plan. 4. Comment forms were available in the Community Affairs office. One person, a City of Tulsa employee, picked up a copy, but did not return a completed form to our office.
The Community Affairs office will maintain a file on the August 20 meeting that includes: Agenda A printout of the PowerPoint presentation slides. Photocopy of newspaper article. Comment form and other handouts from the meeting Mailing lists
L–1 Tulsa’s Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Natural Hazards A group of citizens has proposed a multi-hazard mitigation plan for the City of Tulsa. The plan aims to reduce or prevent damages caused by natural, manmade and technological disasters. The federal government is requiring communities to have a multi- hazard mitigation plan in place in order to receive certain grant monies. The first phase of planning, which focused on natural hazards and hazardous materials events, is almost complete. The draft action plan is presented here for public review through August 28, 2002. 3 Ways to Submit Public Comments
A. Use this form to record your comments. Mail or drop off the completed form (Monday-Friday, 8 a.m.-5 p.m.) before August 28, 2002: Community Affairs and Planning City of Tulsa Public Works Department 515 City Hall Tulsa, OK 74103
B. Use this form as a guide and respond via e-mail to [email protected] before August 28, 2002.
C. Access the City of Tulsa Internet site at www.cityoftulsa.org . Click on “Public Works”. Deadline is August 28, 2002.
Draft Report 1. On a scale of 1 to 3, how do you rate the report? (Circle or click one) 1 – Good, most or all sections were easy to understand 2 – Fair, some sections were hard to understand 3 – Poor, most or all sections were hard to understand
2. How much of the report did you read before you began recording your comments (Check all that apply) o I read the executive summary and table of contents. o I read all the chapters on the Internet or at City Hall. o I read the action plan, but not the other chapters.
3. Enter your other comments about the draft report in the space below (If you are not using an electronic version to record and send your comments, you may attach extra sheets to this form or use the back of this sheet):
Next, we would like your comments on the list of measures we plan to take to mitigate disasters. (Mitigation means steps taken to reduce or prevent damages caused by natural and technological hazards such as tornadoes, floods and terrorism.)
The following measures, if funded, were designed to mitigate natural hazards and hazardous materials events. The list begins with measures aimed at hazards in general, then it shows measures by the type of natural hazard they are designed to mitigate.
L–2 Proposed Mitigation Measures 1. General Currently, the City of Tulsa, other public agencies, private businesses, and non-profit groups conduct educational campaigns to inform the public about measures that can be taken to reduce the danger of property damage and injury from natural and technological hazards. How effective are these campaigns at reaching residents and visitors to Tulsa? What can we do to improve our outreach? To answer these questions, we plan to: 1a. Examine optimum methods of implementing public information and education objectives concerning tornadoes, high winds, lightning, winter storms, extreme heat, fire, hazardous materials events, expansive soils, and wise use of water resources.
4. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
5. Which source(s) do you use for information about disaster mitigation and safety? (Check all that apply) o CityLife utility bill stuffer o City of Tulsa web site (www.cityoftulsa.org) o Other Internet sites o Tulsa Project Impact/Mayor’s Citizen Corps publications o Public Library o Newspaper o TV and radio o Magazines o Other (Please specify)
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
Tulsa’s siren system was state-of-the-art when it was installed in the mid-1980s, but newer, better designs are now available. The 82 sirens currently in place each have an expected life span of 20 years so they will likely need to be replaced during this decade. We plan to: 1b. Evaluate and upgrade warning systems.
6. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
L–3 Currently, Tulsa’s emergency operations are coordinated in one downtown building that houses the 911 Center and the Emergency Operations Center. Since these facilities were built, newer designs and construction techniques have been developed that make buildings more disaster-resistant. The 911 Center and the Emergency Operations Center are essential to enabling the city to restore normal operations after a disaster. We plan to: 1c. Provide new facilities for the 911 Center and the Emergency Operations Center.
7. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency offers a program called Community Emergency Response Team, or CERT. The program educates citizens about the hazards they face and trains them in lifesaving skills. We plan to: 1d. Provide Community Emergency Response Team training for City employees and work with other local CERTs.
8. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
1e. Provide survival equipment and supplies for City emergency response teams to cover employees and others who use City buildings.
9. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
L–4 Tulsa maintains information such as the location and sizes of water lines, storm sewers and sanitary sewers to aid engineers and field crew during daily operations. This information used to be available only on paper atlases. Currently, Tulsa is putting the information on computers, using a software program called a Geographic Information System, or GIS. Emergency responders would benefit by being able to quickly access data about all public utilities including water, gas, electrical and telephone lines. Therefore, we are planning a: 1f. GIS update to include public utility infrastructure.
10. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
Two-way radio and other communication networks used by Tulsa’s first responders are not totally compatible with each other. This sometimes causes delays as responders look for ways to communicate between departments. A common system is needed to improve emergency response times. We plan to: 1g. Install an emergency communication network for Fire, Police, 911, EMSA and other emergency operations.
11. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
The Tulsa City-County Health Department has maps that show where people live in the Tulsa area. These maps are used to predict how many people might be affected by a power outage, tornado, flood or other disaster. Unfortunately, many people are out of the house during the day and no maps exist to show where they work or go to school. If a disaster occurs during the day, rescue teams would have a difficult time predicting how many people might be trapped or require evacuation. Therefore, we plan to: 1h. Execute daytime population maps for the Tulsa community.
12. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
During the 1990s, Tulsa’s Spanish-speaking population grew tremendously. Therefore, we plan to:
L–5 1i. Translate current public information to Spanish.
13. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
Storms can blow or carry tree limbs and other debris into public places such as streets and parks. The debris can keep fire engines, ambulances and other emergency vehicles from reaching affected areas and, in some cases, can contribute to outbreaks of disease after a disaster. Tulsa can benefit from lessons learned in other communities during recent disasters. We plan to: 1j. Review and update the Debris Management Plan.
14. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
L–6 Proposed Mitigation Measures 2. Floods The City of Tulsa has identified more than 50 creek and drainage basins. These basins have been studied in about 30 basin-wide master drainage plans and updates. A master drainage plan is a comprehensive basin- wide study of a watershed that takes into account community values, goals and objectives, existing conditions and future plans. We plan to: 2a. Continue to update and revise basin-wide master drainage plans where changed conditions warrant.
15. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
Tulsa’s Flood and Stormwater Management Plan looks at two ways to reduce and prevent flood damage to properties. One way is called structural and it involves building detention ponds or other structures to keep the water away from the property. Another way is called non-structural and it involves relocation or demolition so that the property is “moved away” from the water. We plan to: 2b. Implement structural and non-structural flood mitigation measures for flood- prone properties as recommended in the basin-wide master drainage plans.
16. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
L–7 The National Flood Insurance Program keeps track of insurance claims made for flood damages. Properties where claims of $1,000 or more have occurred at least twice in the past 10 years are called “Repetitive Loss Properties.” In addition, the City of Tulsa keeps track of properties that suffer repeated damages that are less than $1,000 each. We plan to: 2c. Acquire and remove Repetitive Loss Properties and repeated flooded properties where the City’s Repetitive Loss and master drainage plans identify acquisition to be the most cost effective and desirable mitigation measure.
17. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
Tulsa has a flood alert center that monitors rainfall and stream levels in the Tulsa area. However, much of the flooding Tulsa now suffers is overland drainage problems resulting in flash floods that carry water into streets. Automatic systems are available that detect flooding in low lying areas and trigger a warning arm to block traffic from entering the trouble spot, similar to devices used to stop traffic at many railroad crossings. We plan to: 2d. Launch an automatic monitoring and warning system for spot flooding.
18. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
The siren system has three sounds available: 1) Three-minute steady tone indicates tornado or chemical release; 2) Three-minute wavering tone warns of military attacks; and 3) Three-minute high-low tone indicates flooding. Many residents and visitors have reported they do not know what each sound indicates. Therefore, we plan to: 2e. Educate the public on what the multi-sound sirens mean in the Tulsa area.
19. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
L–8 Proposed Mitigation Measures 3. Tornadoes and High Winds The City of Tulsa follows the International Building Code that requires that new construction be able to withstand winds of up to 80 miles per hour. Researchers continue to develop better construction techniques that result in buildings that can withstand stronger winds. Is the international standard adequate for Tulsa’s tornado risk? Can insurance companies, government or other groups provide incentives to builders so they will want to make structures that can withstand higher wind speeds? To answer these questions we plan to: 3a. Investigate building codes/incentives for adequacy for tornadoes and high winds.
20. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
The Tulsa Convention Center, other City facilities, and most schools and businesses have tornado emergency plans that include identifying the safest place to be in the structure during a tornado warning. Are these safe places adequate or should large public gathering places include shelters? Do other communities require these types of shelters? To answer these questions we plan to: 3b. Investigate community tornado shelter programs implemented in other cities or states.
21. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
Intensive reviews and assessments conducted by experts in the fall of 2001 determined a number of areas where the city is vulnerable to natural or manmade disasters, as well as areas where improvements can be made to improve safety and security. One result of these studies was development of the “Safe and Secure” program. Among the program’s goals are (a) to foster a safe and secure environment (including the workplace) at all City of Tulsa public facilities, whether they are buildings or open spaces and (b) to enable the city to recover from disasters, emergencies, and other critical incidents and restore normal operations. Therefore, we plan to perform the following mitigation measures:
L–9 3c. Provide mobile home community shelters/safe rooms. (Tornado shelters, also called “safe rooms”, are able to withstand high winds that severely damage other parts of a building.)
22. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
3d. Supply NOAA Weather Radios to all local government buildings, schools, hospitals, and critical facilities at a cost of about $70.00 each.
23. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
3e. Provide Safe Rooms in Fire and Police stations.
24. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
3f. Provide employee shelters at critical facilities, such as 911 Center and fire stations.
25. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
L–10 3g. Provide group safe rooms at City Recreation Centers.
26. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
3i. Provide damage resistant glass replacement for City Hall.
27. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
In-house shelters provide space where people can survive a tornado with little or no injury. These shelters, also called “safe rooms”, cost $2,000 or more to put in a home. Therefore, we plan to: 3j. Provide safe room rebates for low income and vulnerable populations.
28. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
L–11 Revolving funds are sometimes used to provide no-interest or low-interest loans to people who do not qualify for a regular loan. With loans from a revolving fund, people can purchase materials and labor to build Safe Rooms then repay the money into the revolving fund so other people can get loans. Safe Rooms cost $2,000 or more to put in a home. Therefore, we plan to: 3k. Begin a revolving fund for families to build safe rooms.
29. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
Other mitigation measures from the “Safe and Secure” program are listed under “Lightning”, “Hailstorms”, and “Urban Fires, Wildfires”.
3l. Perform tornado and high wind structural evaluations of Tulsa schools to determine the best way to retrofit or remodel the buildings to make them more disaster-resistant.
30. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
3m. Prepare weather warning systems for interstate travelers, such as electronic message boards on highways and work with other agencies to provide educational materials at rest stops and information centers.
31. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
L–12 Proposed Mitigation Measures 4. Lightning In recent years, surge protectors for individual appliances or computers have become common in homes and businesses. New technology is being developed that provides surge protection to the entire building, not just individual electrical outlets. We plan to: 4a. Provide educational demonstrations on whole-house surge protection technology.
32. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
In recent years, surge protectors for individual appliances or computers have become common in homes and businesses. New technology is being developed that provides surge protection to the entire building, not just individual electrical outlets. We plan to: 4b. Provide surge protection for computer-reliant Critical Facilities, e.g., 911Center, Emergency Operations Center, police sub-stations, fire stations, etc.
33. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
4c. Designate individuals at city recreation facilities that are educated in storm spotting and safety, who have the authority to take proper action.
34. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
L–13 4d. Educate the community about proper lightning safety through public service announcements and other media outlets.
35. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
Currently, Tulsa’s siren system has the capability to warn people who are outdoors of tornadoes, military attacks and floods. In some parts of the country, communities also provide warnings about lightning. We plan to: 4e. Add lightning warning to the current siren system.
36. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
4f. Study other communities that have lightning warning systems intact.
37. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
L–14 4g. Encourage utilities to provide lightning prevention information materials and programs to their customers.
38. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
L–15 Proposed Mitigation Measures 5. Hailstorms In recent years, thicker, more hail resistant roofing materials have been developed that greatly reduce damage caused by hail. We plan to: 5a. Provide hail resistant roofing for City buildings.
39. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
L–16 Proposed Mitigation Measures 6. Winter Storms The City of Tulsa Public Works Department activates street crews when weather conditions indicate the possibility of snow or ice in the Tulsa area. Since weather forecasts are not always 100 percent accurate, crews sometimes work overtime preparing for storms that never happen. However, in the past, the City’s aggressive snow and ice removal plan has reduced the impact of winter storms on motorists. Therefore, we plan to: 6a. Continue the City’s aggressive snow and ice removal plan.
40. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
Public utilities and homeowners can maintain trees on their properties so branches do not hang over power lines. We plan to: 6b. Encourage routine trimming of trees to reduce power outages during storms.
41. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
6c. Reduce the number of overhead powerlines by moving existing lines below the surface and installing new lines underground.
42. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
L–17 Proposed Mitigation Measures 7. Extreme Heat Local agencies work together on several programs that are designed to reduce and prevent heat-related illnesses and deaths in the city. These programs make up Tulsa’s heat response plan. We intend to: 7a. Review and update Tulsa’s heat response plan.
43. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
7b. Obtain funding for distribution of public information and education materials to vulnerable populations through participating community agencies.
44. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
L–18 Proposed Mitigation Measures 8. Drought Tulsa gets the raw water it uses to produce drinking water from two main sources: the Eucha/Spavinaw lakes chain and Lake Oologah. Each source is transported through a flow line to treatment plants in the city. The City also has rights to raw water from Lake Hudson, but that water travels through the same flow line as the Eucha/Spavinaw water. Adding a third flow line will allow Tulsa to use water from all three sources at the same time. We plan to: 8a. Build a third flow line to the Lake Hudson reservoir for additional water supply by 2020.
45. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
Raw water from the Eucha/Spavinaw lakes chain is treated at the Mohawk Water Treatment Plant. Raw water from Lake Oologah is treated at the A.B. Jewell Water Treatment Plant. If either plant is shut down for an extended period, it would become more difficult to provide adequate supplies of drinking water to all parts of the City. If the systems were linked north of the City, then each plant would be able to pull raw water from either source. Therefore, we plan to: 8b. Tie the Oologah and Spavinaw systems together at the Bird Creek Station.
46. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
The Public Works Department conducts educational activities that encourage customers to not waste drinking water. For example, the Wet in the City program teaches youngsters to shut off the faucet while they brush their teeth. We plan to: 8c. Continue Tulsa’s “Wise Use of Water” program.
47. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
L–19 The City of Tulsa’s water restrictions program specifies certain levels of use as the triggers for voluntary and mandatory restrictions. Excessively high use can occur any year during summer months, not just during a drought. Other communities have developed activities to reduce or prevent damages to property during droughts. These activities are triggered when officials determine that a drought has begun. We plan to: 8d. Develop and implement plans to designate when a drought begins and ends.
48. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
L–20 Proposed Mitigation Measures 9. Expansive Soils 9a. Investigate codes/incentives for the construction of new foundations to avoid expansive soil problems.
49. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
L–21 Proposed Mitigation Measures 10. Urban Fires, Wildfires Sprinkler systems that provide for fire suppression in buildings use treated drinking water. Sometimes the water in the pipes will flow backwards and be used for drinking water unless a valve is installed that prevents the backflow. Since the water stands in the pipes for long periods of time, the water may become stagnant and cause public health problems if ingested. Backflow valves can cost $2,000 or more. Therefore, we plan to: 10a. Apply for mitigation funding for backflow valves for commercial, industrial and multi-family buildings.
50. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
Statistics show that most deaths due to fire occur in homes. Sprinkler systems in houses can control a fire in the early stages and, thus, save lives. All multi-family buildings in Tulsa are now required to have fire suppression systems. We plan to: 10c. Develop public education project addressing the advantages of individual fire suppression in single family residences.
51. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
L–22 10d. Continue replacing inadequately sized water lines with lines of sufficient size to provide proper fire protection to annexed and existing areas.
52. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
The Tulsa Fire Department’s Project Life program has helped reduce injuries due to fires. Under the program, firefighters install smoke detectors for needy individuals. They also produce media events and awareness campaigns to encourage the general public to install and maintain smoke detectors. 10e. Continue fire department’s Project Life program.
53. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
10f. Fund a fire suppression pilot project for single family residences in a publicly funded development in the Lacy Park area.
54. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
L–23 10g. Evaluate wildfire protection and prevention for animals, employees, and visitors to Tulsa Zoo.
55. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
10h. Continue education and get funding to inform people on proper evacuation plans for fires for City facilities, businesses and residential homes.
56. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
L–24 Proposed Mitigation Measures 11. Earthquakes 11a. Adopt the International Building Code in 2002. The code contains stricter requirements that make new construction more resistant to damage from earthquakes.
L–25 Proposed Mitigation Measures 12. Hazardous Materials Events A study of routing of hazardous materials was conducted in 1997. Since then road construction projects have been completed and some companies that use hazardous materials have moved their operations. Therefore, we plan to: 12a. Update the study for routing of hazardous materials through the Tulsa area.
57. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
The City of Tulsa Public Works Department conducts a Household Pollutant Collection event twice a year, in spring and autumn. Some, but not all, household pollutants are accepted throughout the year at depots operated by the Metropolitan Environmental Trust. We plan to: 12b. Continue the City’s Household Pollutant Collection program, and build a year- round site for collection.
58. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
L–26
Proposed Mitigation Measures 13. Keystone Dam Releases 13a. Re-assess the effects of Keystone Dam release rates and timing on downriver properties.
59. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
13b. Update US Army Corps of Engineers Hydrology and Hydraulics for the Arkansas River and Keystone Dam.
60. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
13c. Develop a computer mapping program for results of Arkansas River’s Keystone Dam release rates of 250, 350, and 450 thousand cubic feet per second.
61. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
L–27 13d. Update warning and evacuation plans for Arkansas River areas at risk from dam failure or release flooding.
62. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
13e. Update pre- and post-flood plans for the Arkansas River floodplain, including the areas behind the levees.
63. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
L–28 Proposed Mitigation Measures 14. Levee Failures A master drainage plan is a comprehensive basin-wide study of a watershed that takes into account community values, goals and objectives, existing conditions and future plans. The plan includes assessments of the integrity of structures such as levees. We plan to: 14a. Re-evaluate and update the master drainage plans for areas behind (protected by) the levees.
64. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
Severe storms have destroyed levees in other communities. As a result, the levees could no longer hold back rising rivers and property was flooded. What would happen if a levee was damaged in Tulsa? How many businesses and homes would be affected? We intend to: 14c. Study and develop a plan to address levee damage in Tulsa.
65. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
14d. Continue checking, monitoring and replacing existing levees when necessary.
66. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate this measure? (Circle or click one) 1 – This should be a top priority 2 – This is important, but not a top priority 3 - OK to do if money is available 4 – This is not important; don’t spend money on it 5 – No opinion
o Check here if you added comments about this mitigation measure on the back of this sheet. (Be sure to indicate the number and letter of the measure you are commenting on, for example “4c”.)
L–29